Welp.... Stevo's at it again!!!!! This time Surround Sound is dead!!!!

[Worf101]

Steve Guttenberg my favorite proclaimer of the "obvious" when he's right and not much else when he's wrong has decided this month that Surround Sound is dead... at least for home audio (music) and maybe for HT as well.

Is surround sound for music and home theater on its way out? | The Audiophiliac - CNET News (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-57618566-47/is-surround-sound-for-music-and-home-theater-on-its-way-out/)

For once he makes some valid points about SACD and alike but he's on shakier ground with HT audio... Still even I must admit that Sound Bars are selling like hotcakes and fewer people seem concerned with dedicated multi-speaker HT systems....

Give it a read lemme know what you think.

Worf

[Hyfi]

Never cared for surround music. I have never been to a concert where people played behind me except for a few rare occasions where they played wireless and entered from the rear or ran around the venue.

As for movies, the more people I talk to are not interested in multi channel setup due to placement, amount of room needed, WAF, and other factors including getting it setup properly and maintained. I would say mostly us gearheads are the ones still doing it. I even opted for a ZVOX unit for the bedroom instead of another 2ch or 5.1ch setup.

[recoveryone]

I'm glad he focused on surround music and not try to bring the whole surround market down.

IMHO surround music suffered mainly of not having a dominate source that raised from the battle field of format wars. We all have seen from Bata vs VHS, Divx vs DVD and so on. The recording industry shares in part of the blame as they have not supported any of the formats whole heartly and that in itself made it a niche market.

With the eye on the prize, your/our dollars the industry focused on easy access over real quality of sound. Not to say that surround sound music is better, but in all cases it was produced at higher fildelity. It was easier to reach the masses with heavy compressed audio and leave the quality behind. Even in 2ch, a SACD is 10x better any day of the week than a ACC file from Itunes, but if the public has no real reference point to judge by then its mute.

As for the avarage joe part in all this, I would say that many are still visually owwwed and ahhhed with a big pretty picture than the sound. When big screens first came out, it was all about the size and that factor is still priority one for many. How many of us have been to friends home and try to help them get the most out of that big picture using the right cables. Surround sound suffers the same fate as many want it but do not really know what it is and what it takes to have it right ( heard stories of people having all 5 speakers aligned across the front, thinking that was surround sound). The industry again is not slow on capitalizing on making a quick dollar, and we get the sound bar. The all in one HT speaker with no need for wires and extra speakers, but again where did the quality go? in the backseat.

[Mr Peabody]

I also wonder if it's an effect of so many B&M stores being lost that could effectively set up a surround sound for a demo. Let's face it, if you don't know what it is, or about, you aren't going to buy it. I personally never thought surround music got off the ground. There's some surround music things I've heard that were fun like Porcupine Tree, Flaming Lips or BT, but I still prefer 2-channel music for my main listening.

[StevenSurprenant]

Concerning music, I don't see the need for surround. A friend uses SACD and he restricts output to the 3 front speakers, which he claims to sound much better than 2 channel, at least with his system.

I'm not sure that I can explain this, but with my stereo system, I can hear a 3D soundstage behind the speakers, but at the same time, the room seems to be filled with ambient sound. In other words, it almost sounds like surround except that the images are always in front of you.

I've got speakers all over my living room and I don't like it and I'm an enthusiast too, go figure! It would be different if I had a room specifically for audio. Sometimes I think about getting rid of my surround system just to clean up the room. I don't use it very much.

In real life, at a venue where music is being played, many times you can hear the sound being reflected off the walls around you as distinct sources of sound. I could be wrong, but it seems that the only reason for music surround is to reproduce the venue's acoustic attributes, which may or may not be that important to many listeners.

So, I agree with Steve. Surround music is a bust.

Some of you may remember that I'm no fan of digital, at least not 16 bit. I've gotten it to sound decent in my system, but when compared to vinyl or hi-res digital, it's lacking.

The problem with Hi-Res formats is that few people have a system capable of appreciating it. Where I live, my county has a population of about 113,000 people and no audio stores. Even our local Best buy has only a few systems available and all of them are midfi, at best.

So, without the hardware and the interest, it stands to reason that anything beyond CD or mp3 is a waste of money for most people.

[JohnMichael]

I heard a good music surround system once and it was not like the quad mess that did have speakers playing instruments behind you. The system made a wider, deeper and more solid soundstage with nothing odd going on behind your back.

My problem was with a fixed budget I always thought I could put together a better sounding two channel system. Two better quality speakers than five of lesser quality combined with a good two channel integrated amp along with your choice of sources. Not only is limited budget an issue along with a limited budget sometimes comes limited space.

[StevenSurprenant]

John, I'm with you on this. With a limited budget, money is better spent on a 2 channel system.

Besides, it's amazing what a good 2 channel system can do.

[Smokey]

I don't think lumping music and HT surround together and reaching the same conclusion by the author was the best approach.

First, surround sound for music never took off. So when the author conclude that suround for music is fading, it would not be correct.

He may have a point when concluding about HT surround. But then again you will always have dedicated videophiles that will have surround set up, and masses that will stick to HT-in-Box-and now to bar speakers. So the fading is from one mediocre system (HTIB) to another (bar sound).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Never cared for surround music. I have never been to a concert where people played behind me except for a few rare occasions where they played wireless and entered from the rear or ran around the venue.

Not only have you never cared about it, but it is patently obvious you have no experience with it either. There are so few recordings that have discrete instruments in the surrounds that it is not worth mentioning. I have nearly 800 multichannel recordings, and maybe 15 of them have discrete instruments placed in the surrounds.

Have you ever been to a concert where all of the information hitting your ears is coming from the front only? I highly doubt it. How about the crowd noises happening from behind a orchestra? Not in any concert hall or venue I have been in.


As for movies, the more people I talk to are not interested in multi channel setup due to placement, amount of room needed, WAF, and other factors including getting it setup properly and maintained. I would say mostly us gearheads are the ones still doing it. I even opted for a ZVOX unit for the bedroom instead of another 2ch or 5.1ch setup.

You must be talking to folks in a reverberation chamber, because multichannel system are outselling 2 channel system by at least 20-1 based on NDP recent survey.

Anecdotal stories are only valuable within your own world. Your opinions have always been based on myths, outdated, recycled anecdotal information, and talk from a single minded crowd.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I heard a good music surround system once and it was not like the quad mess that did have speakers playing instruments behind you. The system made a wider, deeper and more solid soundstage with nothing odd going on behind your back.

My problem was with a fixed budget I always thought I could put together a better sounding two channel system. Two better quality speakers than five of lesser quality combined with a good two channel integrated amp along with your choice of sources. Not only is limited budget an issue along with a limited budget sometimes comes limited space.

Two better speakers are better than 5 lesser quality speakers is a myth, and a matter of perspective. The problem here is not the speakers, it is the format. 2 channel from the onset is full of spatial distortions. 2 channel stereo does not have enough information to be perceived as real to the ears, no matter how good the speakers are.

As far as lack of space, that is a myth as well. Harbeth, NHT, ATC, PSB and several other speaker manufacturers offer mini-monitors that allow a 5.1 or 7.1 channel system to be fit in a small space. I have two 7.1 mini-monitors system using ATC, and custom mini-monitors in a 13x17x10' space. A friend of mine has a 5.1 system in a 12x15' room. All of these systems are properly set up for accurate reproduction of mono, stereo, 5.1 and 7.1 channel sources. A two channel system does just two formats. Mono and stereo, and that is it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

John, I'm with you on this. With a limited budget, money is better spent on a 2 channel system.

Besides, it's amazing what a good 2 channel system can do.

Whats more amazing is what it cannot do.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don't think lumping music and HT surround together and reaching the same conclusion by the author was the best approach.

Agreed.


First, surround sound for music never took off. So when the author conclude that suround for music is fading, it would not be correct.

He is not correct on so many fronts. Steve has openly admitted that he has never owned a quality surround system. So his perspective is rather limited in the first place. He also openly admitted that he lays down when he listens to music. That is not great for either 2 channel or multichannel. Steve is a casual music listener, and there are some of us who are active listeners who listen to music like we listen in a concert venue or hall.


He may have a point when concluding about HT surround. But then again you will always have dedicated videophiles that will have surround set up, and masses that will stick to HT-in-Box-and now to bar speakers. So the fading is from one mediocre system (HTIB) to another (bar sound).

Agreed!

[Smokey]

Wow Sir TT, that was two "Agreed" in one post. I must have said something right :D

[JohnMichael]

Two better speakers are better than 5 lesser quality speakers is a myth, and a matter of perspective. The problem here is not the speakers, it is the format. 2 channel from the onset is full of spatial distortions. 2 channel stereo does not have enough information to be perceived as real to the ears, no matter how good the speakers are.

As far as lack of space, that is a myth as well. Harbeth, NHT, ATC, PSB and several other speaker manufacturers offer mini-monitors that allow a 5.1 or 7.1 channel system to be fit in a small space. I have two 7.1 mini-monitors system using ATC, and custom mini-monitors in a 13x17x10' space. A friend of mine has a 5.1 system in a 12x15' room. All of these systems are properly set up for accurate reproduction of mono, stereo, 5.1 and 7.1 channel sources. A two channel system does just two formats. Mono and stereo, and that is it.


Sorry but as much as I love music I also like my décor. Regardless of what multiple speakers can do I would not like the look. As I mentioned I have heard a good surround system once so I know what is on offer with multiple speakers. I choose not to go that way. Some things are a choice. :p

[StevenSurprenant]

I've listen to a few higher end surround systems (with movies) and was impressed, but not as impressed as with a high end stereo system. I think the real difference for me is that a good quality 2 channel system is able to create a 3D landscape behind the speakers, whereas a surround system seems to flatten that soundstage and brings sound around the listener. It's a trade off, but makes sense for movies. Interestingly, the center channel (with the mains) seems to create a layer of sound which we hear as depth, but it's not the same as the depth from a good 2 channel system.

In my mind, it's all about information retrieval. As we improve our systems the images become more solid and separation of these images becomes more distinct. At some point, it seems that we are listening to a live event through a large doorway, figuratively speaking. Each instrument (voices too) are placed in the soundstage at distinct points in space. If we reduce our resolution by using lesser speakers, we begin to loose that imaging and soundstaging. We cannot get that information back using more lower quality speakers and surround decoding. At this point, it's up to the listener to decide what sound they like better.

Someday I would like to hear a surround system with what could be considered state of the art equipment for 2 channel. If the sound quality remains the same as a good 2 channel system, but the surround aspect of it is added, I would have a different opinion, for sure. Of course, this is what SACD and such is supposed to be about. In the past, I haven't given much thought about clapping during a performance, , which T mentioned, but he is right, it should be around you, not in front with the performers. Still, it's not that big of a deal, but if done right, it would be nice. The same applies to rain and thunderstorms.

While I'm here, I would like to say that since I've upgraded my system, I owe recording engineers an apology. I've been complaining about recording quality for a very long time, but since my upgrade, I've discovered that many recordings are better than I could have imagined. Even CD quality is acceptable and sometimes impressive.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sorry but as much as I love music I also like my décor. Regardless of what multiple speakers can do I would not like the look. As I mentioned I have heard a good surround system once so I know what is on offer with multiple speakers. I choose not to go that way. Some things are a choice. :p

Then you find speakers with a cabinet that matches your decor. When you walk into my music room, the last thing you notice is the speakers. That is what decor will do for you.

[JohnMichael]

Then you find speakers with a cabinet that matches your decor. When you walk into my music room, the last thing you notice is the speakers. That is what decor will do for you.


My listening room and living room are the same. If I had a dedicated room things might be different. As it is I only have room for two speakers both visually and décor. I do not even have a TV in my living room.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I've listen to a few higher end surround systems (with movies) and was impressed, but not as impressed as with a high end stereo system. I think the real difference for me is that a good quality 2 channel system is able to create a 3D landscape behind the speakers, whereas a surround system seems to flatten that soundstage and brings sound around the listener. It's a trade off, but makes sense for movies. Interestingly, the center channel (with the mains) seems to create a layer of sound which we hear as depth, but it's not the same as the depth from a good 2 channel system.

This statement is complete and total nonsense. Bell labs stated back in 1932 that it takes AT LEAST three speakers across the front to accurately map a frontal soundstage. 2 channels was a compromise(not ideal) based on the limitation of technology back in that day. Just listen to any of the Living presence 3 channel recordings, and compare them to the two channel recordings. It is also a known fact that three channels across the front IMPROVES sound-field depth, not degrade it.


In my mind, it's all about information retrieval. As we improve our systems the images become more solid and separation of these images becomes more distinct. At some point, it seems that we are listening to a live event through a large doorway, figuratively speaking. Each instrument (voices too) are placed in the soundstage at distinct points in space. If we reduce our resolution by using lesser speakers, we begin to loose that imaging and soundstaging. We cannot get that information back using more lower quality speakers and surround decoding. At this point, it's up to the listener to decide what sound they like better.

We don't listen to music through a large doorway, the music comes from the front, sides, and rear in a live venue. I don't care how much you spend on equipment, the room plays a far higher role in achieving solid imaging than just the speakers themselves. Put my SC-V's in a highly reflective room, and poof, gone is the great imaging these speakers are known for. This goes double for a two channel system that relies heavily on room reflections to achieve a decent sense of spatial space. This is why various speaker designs have been used for two channel - the reverberation time of most rooms is completely inadequate, so you increase reflection density with omnidirectional and bipolar speakers. The reality is, you don't need these designs, you need a correct spatial presentation - stereo cannot provide that PERIOD.


Someday I would like to hear a surround system with what could be considered state of the art equipment for 2 channel. If the sound quality remains the same as a good 2 channel system, but the surround aspect of it is added, I would have a different opinion, for sure. Of course, this is what SACD and such is supposed to be about. In the past, I haven't given much thought about clapping during a performance, , which T mentioned, but he is right, it should be around you, not in front with the performers. Still, it's not that big of a deal, but if done right, it would be nice. The same applies to rain and thunderstorms.

I would say before you come to any conclusions about surround, you need to live with it(not listen for two hours on your friends system). You will discover just like I have that you are missing so much of the recording by trying to cram all of that spatial information in to just two channels. Test have shown that stereo is more difficult to listen to(it requires more brain power to fool the brain), and that you cannot have recording ambiance(recording room reverberation) coming from the same source and direction as the instruments and voice without degrading some, or all of the information. We have not even gotten into HRT effects between 2-4khz that dulls the sound, or that imaging breaks down if you move off access of the center line between the speakers.


While I'm here, I would like to say that since I've upgraded my system, I owe recording engineers an apology. I've been complaining about recording quality for a very long time, but since my upgrade, I've discovered that many recordings are better than I could have imagined. Even CD quality is acceptable and sometimes impressive.

And I had to get trashed by you so you could figure this out. :rolleyes5:

[StevenSurprenant]

I would say before you come to any conclusions about surround, you need to live with it(not listen for two hours on your friends system). You will discover just like I have that you are missing so much of the recording by trying to cram all of that spatial information in to just two channels. Test have shown that stereo is more difficult to listen to(it requires more brain power to fool the brain), and that you cannot have recording ambiance(recording room reverberation) coming from the same source and direction as the instruments and voice without degrading some, or all of the information. We have not even gotten into HRT effects between 2-4khz that dulls the sound, or that imaging breaks down if you move off access of the center line between the speakers.

I have lived with surround for about 10 years. I am also fully aware of how the brain works in this instance, and that it can fill in the holes, so to speak. I've also discovered that the better a system is, the less the brain has to process the sound.

The only downside to stereo is that the image shifts when a person moves out of the center. This shift can be minimized with proper speaker setup. In addition, depending on the degree of speaker dispersion, the tonal qualities also change when off center. Then there are HRT effects, as you mentioned, which can be reduced with a center speaker, but it isn't completely eliminated.
Quite frankly, I don't think it's that big of a deal. My own experiments in this shows that a small degree of improvement can be had when taking this into account, but it's hardly note worthy. Speaker and room setup is vastly more important than anything that HRT can do to degrade the image.

We've spoken about these things before and technically you are correct, but I don't think you put things in perspective. Every room sounds different, every speaker sounds different, so do you really think that these minor problems with 2 channel are even worth spending a second of brain power on. Why would a person waste a single second on something that improves the audio minimally when there are so many things that do matter.


And I had to get trashed by you so you could figure this out.

You don't understand, I was speaking about music. I haven't changed my mind about movie audio. Why do you think I rarely use my surround system. You may think that audio engineers and techs like yourself are producing a quality product, but not from my perspective. While surround movies can be entertaining, it's not worth the effort to have to keep turning the volume up and down throughout the movie, or to have dialog buried so deep in the noise (booms and bangs) that no one can understand what is being said. I cringe every time an action scene comes along. This isn't a problem with the hardware, if you get my drift. Occasionally, there are movies that sound pretty good in surround.


We don't listen to music through a large doorway, the music comes from the front, sides, and rear in a live venue. I don't care how much you spend on equipment, the room plays a far higher role in achieving solid imaging than just the speakers themselves. Put my SC-V's in a highly reflective room, and poof, gone is the great imaging these speakers are known for. This goes double for a two channel system that relies heavily on room reflections to achieve a decent sense of spatial space. This is why various speaker designs have been used for two channel - the reverberation time of most rooms is completely inadequate, so you increase reflection density with omnidirectional and bipolar speakers. The reality is, you don't need these designs, you need a correct spatial presentation - stereo cannot provide that PERIOD.

Agreed, you don't get surround sound from 2 channel. Even if you add more speakers, each room adds it's own flavor to the sound. Besides, for music, hearing room ambiance to the sides and rear is minimally important and adds very little to the event. If a room is set up properly, there are enough subtle reflections to give the illusion of being in a bigger room.


This statement is complete and total nonsense. Bell labs stated back in 1932 that it takes AT LEAST three speakers across the front to accurately map a frontal soundstage. 2 channels was a compromise(not ideal) based on the limitation of technology back in that day. Just listen to any of the Living presence 3 channel recordings, and compare them to the two channel recordings. It is also a known fact that three channels across the front IMPROVES sound-field depth, not degrade it.

I've been to many movie theaters and listened to some higher end surround systems and in all cases, the depth of the soundstage is reduced compared to 2 channel. Perhaps this is a software problem? Besides, a good 2 channel system already produces a depth that is seemingly without limit. The problem I have with a center speaker is that it seems to layer the sound, voices in the front, noise to the back. In 2 channel the performers are in the room, in surround, the performer is in front of the room. Software problem again? Anyway, it's not always bad. Surround can be fun, but realistic, it is not.

We spoke of how the brain effects a persons perception and I think “you” hear what you want, or what “you” expect to hear. This is reminiscent of the many times Bose owners think their speakers sound as good as a highend system. I don't hear what you do nor do I want to. I think you are deceiving yourself into believing that surround is as good as you think it is. Perhaps it has the potential of being the latest and greatest, but I haven't had that experience yet. As a matter of fact, adding more speakers creates problems of it's own. Many of us spend countless hours positioning our speakers and treating the room just to get 2 channel to sound as good as possible.

Beside, you saying that multiple lower quality speakers are better than two really good speakers is ludicrous.

I wish you had all the answers, that way all we would have to do ask you, but you don't and you seem to get hung up on issues that are of the least importance. You spend your time defending surround as if it's the pinnacle of audio reproduction. At best, it's just different and has it's own limitations and positive attributes, just as stereo does.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have lived with surround for about 10 years. I am also fully aware of how the brain works in this instance, and that it can fill in the holes, so to speak. I've also discovered that the better a system is, the less the brain has to process the sound.

And just what listening tests(as opposed to your highly biased listening experience), and how many listeners can confirm your findings?

Neither the Canadian Radio Society, nor Dr. Peter Toole's listening test confirm this. This is not to mention testing done at THX, and DTS.

I am calling your statement BS, because no matter the quality of the system, it is the format that is the issue. The brain cannot fill in what is not there, it does not just make things up from thin air.

If you are so aware of how the brain works, then how come you don't seem to understand that in order for the brain to fill in the holes, it has to work extremely hard to do so?


The only downside to stereo is that the image shifts when a person moves out of the center. This shift can be minimized with proper speaker setup.

You don't seem to have a clue about how the ear/brain mechanism works

No it cannot, and science does not support this. This is an issue of timing and phase, and it cannot be avoided by any speaker placement. Anytime you are out of the center, the timing of the arrival of the signals will shift to the speaker closest to you. This is why a solid center speaker is so vital if you sit off axis. No matter how you shift the speakers, the timing error will still exist.


In addition, depending on the degree of speaker dispersion, the tonal qualities also change when off center. Then there are HRT effects, as you mentioned, which can be reduced with a center speaker, but it isn't completely eliminated.

Wrong again. A center channel carrying it own discrete information is not subject to timing errors the same way as two speakers with blended output(vocals in the center).


Quite frankly, I don't think it's that big of a deal. My own experiments in this shows that a small degree of improvement can be had when taking this into account, but it's hardly note worthy. Speaker and room setup is vastly more important than anything that HRT can do to degrade the image.

Your listening tests are unscientific, biased, and allow you to hear exactly what you want to hear(subjective hearing). And again, you are dead wrong. No matter the quality of the speaker, or the acoustics of the room, HRTE are going to occur with two channel, because it is a head size related effect, not a speaker or room related effect.

Do you want to spew more nonsense?


We've spoken about these things before and technically you are correct, but I don't think you put things in perspective. Every room sounds different, every speaker sounds different, so do you really think that these minor problems with 2 channel are even worth spending a second of brain power on.

I don't think(and never have) that you quite understand what you are talking about, and I have told you this before. Two channel from the very beginning was a compromise. In spite of Bell Labs extensive listening tests on 2 channel and 3 channels setups, vinyl could only handle mono at first, and later stereo. Vinyl cannot handle anymore channels than that without some sort of matrixing, or dual carrier scheme(quadraphonics).


Why would a person waste a single second on something that improves the audio minimally when there are so many things that do matter.

They do when they understand how the ear/brain mechanism works. You have a tendency to dismiss or minimalize what you cannot get your head around, and that leads to ignorant, unscientific, and biased statements over and over again.




You don't understand, I was speaking about music. I haven't changed my mind about movie audio. Why do you think I rarely use my surround system.

Probably because it is a poorly setup piece of crap. Signals are signals, whether they are music, or soundtracks. A well setup and calibrated system sitting in a room who's acoustical issues are addressed does not know the difference.


You may think that audio engineers and techs like yourself are producing a quality product, but not from my perspective.

Who gives a damn about your perspective? Your system is poorly set up, so from what perspective can you challenge an audio engineer who system is well setup, constantly calibrated(before each session) and sits in a room the was built from the ground up to get excellent acoustics and sound isolation? You have a penchant for over valueing you own opinions and perspectives - it is purely subjective, not objective.


While surround movies can be entertaining, it's not worth the effort to have to keep turning the volume up and down throughout the movie, or to have dialog buried so deep in the noise (booms and bangs) that no one can understand what is being said.

Funny, this does not occur on the dubbing stage, not in the theater, and not on a system that is well designed and sitting in a room who acoustics are addressed. This only happens when the center channel is poorly calibrated, sitting in a room node, and of a different design than the L/R speakers. We have standards(that your room and system apparently does not follow). Dialog has a priority over any and everything in the mix. Dubbing stages and professional theaters(not to mention any good multichannel music system) use three identical speakers across the front. If you center speaker differs in any way from the L/R speakers, or if the acoustics of the room is reflection heavy, then dialog intelligibility issues will occur. Don't blame the mix, blame your system that you know is not perfect(or even close to it).

How do you square this contradictory statement with this one?

While I'm here, I would like to say that since I've upgraded my system, I owe recording engineers an apology. I've been complaining about recording quality for a very long time, but since my upgrade, I've discovered that many recordings are better than I could have imagined. Even CD quality is acceptable and sometimes impressive.

Sounds to me like you don't know your bum from a hole in the ground.




I cringe every time an action scene comes along.

That is because your system is incapable of reproducing it accurately.


This isn't a problem with the hardware, if you get my drift. Occasionally, there are movies that sound pretty good in surround.

Yes it is a problem with hardware. It is a problem with acoustics as well.






Agreed, you don't get surround sound from 2 channel. Even if you add more speakers, each room adds it's own flavor to the sound.

Wrong again. The more speakers you add to a room, the less you hear that room. You obviously have never heard of the "presence effect" or the rule of intensity dominance.



Besides, for music, hearing room ambiance to the sides and rear is minimally important and adds very little to the event.

Ignorant BS! Once again, and uneducated opinion can never be confused with facts. Sean Olive, Dr. Floyd Toole, Paul Barton have all done reflection testing, and their results disagree with your uneducated opinion. Read;

http://audioroundtable.com/misc/Loudspeakers_and_Rooms.pdf

Notice these words;

A review of the scientific literature reveals that natural reflections in ...... lateral reflection caused a perceptible change in the size or location ...

Dr. Toole came to this conclusion with a highly optimized system(with adjustable acoustics), and 2,000 listeners. You came to your conclusions is a poorly set up system, with just your old ears.

read this;

Loudspeaker Placement in Small Rooms | Richard's Stuff (http://rtaylor.sites.tru.ca/2013/05/08/loudspeaker-placement-in-small-rooms/)

Notice this statement.

Ideally we need to delay the arrival of lateral reflections at the listening position by (at least) about 6ms relative to the direct sound

You cannot do this with 2 channel, because you have no control of the arrival time of lateral reflections(you can control the amplitude by adding or taking away sound absorbing panels). You can do this with surround by just adding 6ms of delay to the side speakers which carry the natural reflections recorded in the hall.





If a room is set up properly, there are enough subtle reflections to give the illusion of being in a bigger room.

This shows you do not understand the concept of reverberation time and reflection density in small rooms. To give the illusion of a larger room, the reverberation time has to be longer. Most casual listening rooms rely on reflection density(diffusion), which can degrade imaging at certain frequencies.


I've been to many movie theaters and listened to some higher end surround systems and in all cases, the depth of the soundstage is reduced compared to 2 channel.

That is because you are used to hearing artificial depth via room reflections that are not in the recording. They are room borne. In movie theaters and well set up surround systems, the frontal reflections are eliminated either by absorption panels, or by a baffle wall. So what you are hearing is exactly what is on the recording, untouched by front wall reflections. The depth of the sound field is in the mix, not in the room. Any depth added by the room reflections is a distortion of the recording itself. It may be pleasing to the ear with just two speakers, but it is a distortion of the room acoustical laid over the original output from the speakers




Perhaps this is a software problem? Besides, a good 2 channel system already produces a depth that is seemingly without limit.

Based solely on room reflections that are not on the recording. We call this spatial distortion, and you have obviously gotten used to listening to various types of room distortions.


The problem I have with a center speaker is that it seems to layer the sound, voices in the front, noise to the back.

That is what the center channel is supposed to do dummy! Dialog is given priority over other sounds in the center channel mix.


In 2 channel the performers are in the room, in surround, the performer is in front of the room.

This is the mother of all stupid statements. In 2 channel, the performers are in the front of the room just like surround. No different. If you have two speakers in the front of the room(stereo) then voices can only come from where the speakers are.

Please think about what you are saying before you post.


Software problem again? Anyway, it's not always bad. Surround can be fun, but realistic, it is not.

If it is a software problem, it is a problem of both stereo and surround. Voices come from the same direction on both.


We spoke of how the brain effects a persons perception and I think “you” hear what you want, or what “you” expect to hear.

You don't know what I hear, you don't have my ears. This comment applies to you as well.


This is reminiscent of the many times Bose owners think their speakers sound as good as a highend system.

Have you asked ALL Bose owners if they think their system is as good as a high end system, or are you talking out of you bum AGAIN!!!

I'll take the latter.



I don't hear what you do nor do I want to.

Yeah, you like coloration, degradation, and distortions, I don't.



I think you are deceiving yourself into believing that surround is as good as you think it is.

I think you are deceiving yourself into believing stereo is as good as you think it is. Science and listening tests from MANY do not support this.



Perhaps it has the potential of being the latest and greatest, but I haven't had that experience yet.

Then perhaps you need to shut up until you do.


As a matter of fact, adding more speakers creates problems of it's own. Many of us spend countless hours positioning our speakers and treating the room just to get 2 channel to sound as good as possible.

The reason you have to go through all this trouble with two channel is because you hear FAR, FAR, more room with just two speakers than you would hear with 6 or 8 speakers. Yes adding speakers does create some problems - you have to have the room to properly place them. This is a problem that can easily be handled by scaling the system properly to the room. Since speaker manufacturers have no come up with high quality mini-monitors(see Harbeth, PSB, ATC and several others) designed for smaller room, that problem has been minimized greatly.


Beside, you saying that multiple lower quality speakers are better than two really good speakers is ludicrous.

Lower quality is a matter of perspective. What you consider as lower quality is based on price and size, not actual measurements and listening. What your air head does not seem to grasp is that the burden of quality in two channels rests on just TWO SPEAKERS. Two speakers that have to reproduce vocals, instruments, and the ambiance of the recording. In order for all of that to be clearly heard, you need high quality speakers. With surround, I can assigned a subwoofer to handle the bass frequencies(takes the burden off the main speakers and amps), one dedicated(and similar) speaker for vocals, two dedicated speakers for instruments in the frontal soundstage, and 2-4 speakers to handle recorded ambience. The burden of quality is spread over 6-8 speakers, not just two - so it does not require very large or overly expensive speakers to do a good job. 8 people can build a better house quicker than two people.


I wish you had all the answers, that way all we would have to do ask you, but you don't and you seem to get hung up on issues that are of the least importance.

They are least important to YOU, which is why you have so many complaints about recordings.


You spend your time defending surround as if it's the pinnacle of audio reproduction. At best, it's just different and has it's own limitations and positive attributes, just as stereo does.

Actually, I am not defending surround at all. I just pointing out all of the BS inexperienced and uneducated comments you seem to make all of the time.

You spend an awful amount of time trying to disparage surround, and you don't even have a decent surround system to support what you say. This is why I dismiss you as just another person who talks alot, but does not seem to know very much.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

My listening room and living room are the same. If I had a dedicated room things might be different. As it is I only have room for two speakers both visually and décor. I do not even have a TV in my living room.

JM, this is your choice, not some limitation of surround. If you really wanted a surround system, you could easily figure out how to make it work with your room size and decor. I did when I had a surround system in my living room.

[Feanor]

I've listen to a few higher end surround systems (with movies) and was impressed, but not as impressed as with a high end stereo system. I think the real difference for me is that a good quality 2 channel system is able to create a 3D landscape behind the speakers, whereas a surround system seems to flatten that soundstage and brings sound around the listener. It's a trade off, but makes sense for movies. Interestingly, the center channel (with the mains) seems to create a layer of sound which we hear as depth, but it's not the same as the depth from a good 2 channel system.
...
I listen to stereo and surround sound on a daily basis. My stereo system is the best I can afford and I couldn't duplicate in surround. For music listening I prefer my stereo -- not to mention that there is far, far more recorded music in stereo.

Yet I wouldn't never argue the stereo is "better" than surround in any way. The best stereo can do is give you a small window into the listening venue. At best it's like standing in the doorway to the concert hall; surround, OTOH, is like being IN the concert hall, at least when listening to decent recordings.

[JohnMichael]

JM, this is your choice, not some limitation of surround. If you really wanted a surround system, you could easily figure out how to make it work with your room size and decor. I did when I had a surround system in my living room.


Yes it is my choice and I choose not to have a surround system. If I really wanted one which I do not. I know you are passionate about it but I am not. This is like one member who told me I was wrong for not having tubes and another member who thought I should have a single driver speaker.

[Hyfi]

Yes it is my choice and I choose not to have a surround system. If I really wanted one which I do not. I know you are passionate about it but I am not. This is like one member who told me I was wrong for not having tubes and another member who thought I should have a single driver speaker.

You are still wrong. You have to like and agree with everything Terrance says or you are wrong. You are not allowed to have your own opinion as to what you yourself likes or dislikes, only what Terrance says you should like. Got it now?

[StevenSurprenant]

I've been giving a lot of thought about surround sound and I've decided it's just not worth the extra equipment or the loss of real estate in my living room.

I was really excited when I first got my surround system but after living with it for a long time, I find myself less and less interested in it.


I also gave some thought to my analogy that stereo is like listening through a doorway, but that is inaccurate. At night when I turn the lights down/off, it's like sitting in front of the performers and the sound fills the entire room which is unlike listening through that doorway I mentioned. The smallness of my room disappears and I find myself completely engulfed in the performance.


It's my opinion, but I think surround for movies is a bust too. It's not a total bust but for what it costs, the money would be better spent on better speakers and equipment for 2 channel. Of course, if money or room isn't an issue then why not.


What I like about 2 channel (with music) is that it sounds real. It has depth and the images are placed in a 3D soundstage.


What I like about surround ( with movies) is that the back channels add information that a 2 channel cannot duplicate. 2 channel can give the impression of surround and even produce images behind the listener, but not to the extent of surround. So for that aspect of it I give it a thumbs up.


I think the biggest drawback of surround is the software. I have heard some pretty good sound from movies, but most of the time, it sounds way over done and less real than music on a 2 channel system. There is nothing more exciting than a low rumble permeating the room during a scary scene in a movie. It really hits to the heart of a persons emotional state. However, it seems that those that make these movies have the mindset that it takes an extended amount of time of loud crash bangs and such to achieve this effect. It has the opposite effect, it's fun when first experienced, but after many movies of the same thing, all it does is give me a headache. It's the sudden increase in sound that startles, but a constant drone at loud volumes is irritating. Thankfully, there are some audio engineers that know what they're doing and every so often a truly enjoyable movie (sound wise) comes along.


At this point I don't know what to think. I quit listening to surround (for the most part) because of the software, but with a good recording, it's very entertaining. Is it worth keeping for those times when a good recording comes along? Perhaps since it's already paid for, but if I had it to do over again, I don't think I would buy another surround system.


A funny thing... rarely do I hear anyone comment about the sound of a movie. As important as sound is to a movie, it's the plot and acting that people comment about. I have also heard people speak about not being able to understand the dialog because of all the noise in the soundtrack. I've also heard people wanting to watch movies at the theater because of the “big” screen. It seems we are making a lot talk about sound, right now, but why don't people mention it? Is it because people don't care about it or is it because it's not that note worthy?

[Hyfi]

I have also heard people speak about not being able to understand the dialog because of all the noise in the soundtrack. I've also heard people wanting to watch movies at the theater because of the “big” screen. It seems we are making a lot talk about sound, right now, but why don't people mention it? Is it because people don't care about it or is it because it's not that note worthy?

Because more than likely, they are the same people listening to MP3s thru crappy little dirty earbuds.

One of my favorite movies for test tracking great sounds is Super 8, the train wreck. In the right setting, it can make you jump in your seat.

One of the things I keep running into, is like you said, there is too much extra sound or background music sometimes which screws with the dialog. I understand that some may be gear or rooms themselves but it seems the producers are just adding way too much to the mix and it's really not needed to watch the movie or get the point.

[JohnMichael]

You are still wrong. You have to like and agree with everything Terrance says or you are wrong. You are not allowed to have your own opinion as to what you yourself likes or dislikes, only what Terrance says you should like. Got it now?

Remember I said I have heard an impressive surround sound system. If my room was bigger than 12x15 and a dedicated audio room I would enjoy one. Terrance has never been the worst in being overly zealous and he also has a great deal of experience. I hope this is not brewing into another gang up. Post to Terrance directly and do not use others thoughts to bolster your own.

[Feanor]

One of the things I keep running into, is like you said, there is too much extra sound or background music sometimes which screws with the dialog. I understand that some may be gear or rooms themselves but it seems the producers are just adding way too much to the mix and it's really not needed to watch the movie or get the point.
Time & again I've found dialog hard to understand in stereo but have been able to make it out in surround; this because much distracting sound is moved from the front to the rear channels.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You are still wrong. You have to like and agree with everything Terrance says or you are wrong. You are not allowed to have your own opinion as to what you yourself likes or dislikes, only what Terrance says you should like. Got it now?

You can have whatever "opinion" you desire. Just don't try and represent that opinion as a fact.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I was really excited when I first got my surround system but after living with it for a long time, I find myself less and less interested in it.

If I had a poorly set up surround system, pooly(if not at all) calibrated, and in a room where modes and reflections are so loud that it affect dialog intelligibility, I would be less interested in listening to that system as well.

Fortunately for me, I don't have any of these issues - hence why I can listen to both my dedicated HT and dedicated multichannel music room systems all day and all night.



It's my opinion, but I think surround for movies is a bust too. It's not a total bust but for what it costs, the money would be better spent on better speakers and equipment for 2 channel. Of course, if money or room isn't an issue then why not.

And just what praytell would you base your opinion that surround for movies is a bust? Another comment pulled out of your bum? Here is the problem. You are on the wrong website for discussing anything multichannel. Most folks here emphasis is on two channel, which is probably why you are here. Go to AVSforum, Bluray.com, and Hometheater.com and these folks have already moved to immersive audio systems(11-1 and 14-1). The only time I listen to stereo is on Netflix.



What I like about 2 channel (with music) is that it sounds real. It has depth and the images are placed in a 3D soundstage.

Sorry, but poor choice of words. It is impossible for stereo to sound like 3D audio, there is not enough channels for that. 3D audio comes in the form of Dolby Atmos, DTS NEO:X, and Auro surround. These are object based encoders and decoders that allows a mixer to mix a signal anywhere within the room, and is object based not channel based. 3D audio requires at least 7 discrete channels, and AT LEAST two discrete height channels(depending on the size of the room). 3D audio is immersive(sound from everywhere), stereo is a purely front loaded format incapable of 3D immersion.



What I like about surround ( with movies) is that the back channels add information that a 2 channel cannot duplicate. 2 channel can give the impression of surround and even produce images behind the listener, but not to the extent of surround. So for that aspect of it I give it a thumbs up.

The only way stereo can place images behind the listener is if the two channels are processed with a out of phase enhancer such as QS processing. Otherwise, all you are hearing is just a bunch of room borne reflections that have nothing to do with the recording.



I think the biggest drawback of surround is the software. I have heard some pretty good sound from movies, but most of the time, it sounds way over done and less real than music on a 2 channel system.

What a airheaded comparison. Music is a documentary of an live event. A movie soundtrack supports a picture. The two cannot be compared without evoking laughter at the person trying to do so.


There is nothing more exciting than a low rumble permeating the room during a scary scene in a movie. It really hits to the heart of a persons emotional state. However, it seems that those that make these movies have the mindset that it takes an extended amount of time of loud crash bangs and such to achieve this effect. It has the opposite effect, it's fun when first experienced, but after many movies of the same thing, all it does is give me a headache.

Steve, you still do not understand just what a movie soundtrack is supposed to do. It supports the visuals. If the visuals do not have explosion, then the soundtrack has no need for it as well.


It's the sudden increase in sound that startles, but a constant drone at loud volumes is irritating. Thankfully, there are some audio engineers that know what they're doing and every so often a truly enjoyable movie (sound wise) comes along.

Sounds to me like this statement once again blames the software as if the posters systems is perfect. The drone you hear is more likely a room mode, and has nothing to do with the soundtracks. I would also suggest you watch more types of movies. Not all soundtracks are created equal, but it could sound that way if you only watch one type of genre of movie. Just like every movie has different visuals, it will also have a different soundtrack to support those visuals.

Underexposure leads to ignorance.



At this point I don't know what to think. I quit listening to surround (for the most part) because of the software, but with a good recording, it's very entertaining.

Steve, here is your problem. You are always blaming the software for every problem you hear. Did it ever occur to you that your system is the issue, not the software? Probably not, your system is of reference quality, so it could not possibly be your system(sarcasm off). If a person has as many issues as you do with software, it is probably in their best interest to revisited the quality of your system, your room, and how well your system is calibrated. We don't have dialog issues on the dubbing stage, I have not heard it in a professional theater, and I have not heard this problem on none of the 7 systems I own. Based on that, the problem MUST be in your room, your speakers, or the synergy between your components.


Is it worth keeping for those times when a good recording comes along? Perhaps since it's already paid for, but if I had it to do over again, I don't think I would buy another surround system.

Since you don't seem to know how to properly put together a surround system, you should probably stick with a 2 channel system. A monkey can put one together without much of a problem.



A funny thing... rarely do I hear anyone comment about the sound of a movie. As important as sound is to a movie, it's the plot and acting that people comment about.

Once again, you are on the wrong website for talking about movie soundtracks. This site is mostly audio, not movies. You can look at the forums and tell that. Go to more movie oriented sites like Bluray.com, AVSforum, Hometheater.com where movie sound is talked about all of the time.

Its hard to get exposed to things when you live in a anechoic chamber.



I have also heard people speak about not being able to understand the dialog because of all the noise in the soundtrack.

That "noise" you speak of is sound effects and music. They are as integral to a soundtracks as the dialog. Ever listening to a movie with no sound effects and music? Pretty boring.

When a person has dialog intelligibility issues, the problem lies in the speakers, amps, or room. The software is created in an environment that is pristine, and on equipment FAR, FAR better than yours.


I've also heard people wanting to watch movies at the theater because of the “big” screen. It seems we are making a lot talk about sound, right now, but why don't people mention it? Is it because people don't care about it or is it because it's not that note worthy?

Maybe its because you are talking to yourself in a vacuum. If all there was to movies is the big screen, then why are folks flocking to Dolby Atmos, and Auro based surround equipt theaters? Why has most of the technological advances in movies occurred in the audio?

Steve, stick to what you know - which means it will only take you seconds to tell it all.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Time & again I've found dialog hard to understand in stereo but have been able to make it out in surround; this because much distracting sound is moved from the front to the rear channels.

Feanor, it is also because when dialog is present, there are no other sounds(or the other effects are dropped so low) in that channel. Dialog is king in movies, and if nobody can understand it, they cannot enjoy the movie.

Vocals in 2 channel are difficult to hear(sometimes) because of head related transfer effects located in the most sensitive parts of our hearing(between 1-4khz). Inter aural cross talk is also a HUGE problem with vocals mixed between two speakers. This is why having a dedicated center channel is so much better than relying on phantom image set between two speakers.

[Hyfi]

Not only have you never cared about it, but it is patently obvious you have no experience with it either. There are so few recordings that have discrete instruments in the surrounds that it is not worth mentioning. I have nearly 800 multichannel recordings, and maybe 15 of them have discrete instruments placed in the surrounds.

Have you ever been to a concert where all of the information hitting your ears is coming from the front only? I highly doubt it. How about the crowd noises happening from behind a orchestra? Not in any concert hall or venue I have been in.



You must be talking to folks in a reverberation chamber, because multichannel system are outselling 2 channel system by at least 20-1 based on NDP recent survey.

Anecdotal stories are only valuable within your own world. Your opinions have always been based on myths, outdated, recycled anecdotal information, and talk from a single minded crowd.

If you re-read the original post, the OP asked "What do we think". That means he asked for our opinions. I know that is hard for some to grasp since all they want to do is argue and attempt to point out their superiority and attempt to make other look small. It's OK, we are all used to it here.

As for your second remark, spiteful as usual, the people I talk to are in the same pay scale as myself and below. We do not have the cash and multiple houses and spare gear as you do and I guess the people you associate with. We all know the Haves don't spend much time with the Have Not's except to belittle them.

Glad you showed up. At least there were 4 posts yesterday.

[Hyfi]

Remember I said I have heard an impressive surround sound system. If my room was bigger than 12x15 and a dedicated audio room I would enjoy one. Terrance has never been the worst in being overly zealous and he also has a great deal of experience. I hope this is not brewing into another gang up. Post to Terrance directly and do not use others thoughts to bolster your own.

How could there be a gang up? Since you Banned MarkW, I am all alone remember?

[StevenSurprenant]

Time & again I've found dialog hard to understand in stereo but have been able to make it out in surround; this because much distracting sound is moved from the front to the rear channels.

I've also found that sometimes it helps to set the center channel louder than the rest. It doesn't always help and the dialog might only be slightly better. On occasion there are movies that nothing can be done with.

The last superman movie I watched at the theater (my sister talked me into it). There were many moments that I couldn't understand the dialog. I liked the movie, so I figure that I can watch it again, at home. Compared to our local theaters, home is always better.

[StevenSurprenant]

How could there be a gang up? Since you Banned MarkW, I am all alone remember?

And I have no interest in what T says, so peace reigns on...

I will say this... Every time this happens everyone gets the blame except the instigator, if you understand what I'm saying. With that said... Life is too short to have to deal with this type of nonsense or the people who cause it and peace is but a click away with the ignore list.

[Smokey]

Time & again I've found dialog hard to understand in stereo but have been able to make it out in surround; this because much distracting sound is moved from the front to the rear channels.I ran into that problem often since have only 2.1 set up with no center speaker for HT. A way to fix this is to reposition your speakers, including either toe-in or toeing them out. Now no problem hearing the dialog :)

[JohnMichael]

And I have no interest in what T says, so peace reigns on...

I will say this... Every time this happens everyone gets the blame except the instigator, if you understand what I'm saying. With that said... Life is too short to have to deal with this type of nonsense or the people who cause it and peace is but a click away with the ignore list.


No one got blame I just asked my post not be used to bolster someone else's argument. If your issue is with Sir T post to him directly. Sir T has always been Sir T and I doubt if he is going to change.

[Worf101]

I should learn to keep my big, fat, mouth shut! Or is it my big fat fingers?

Worf

[Hyfi]

I should learn to keep my big, fat, mouth shut! Or is it my big fat fingers?

Worf

No not at all. There was nothing wrong with your post. Bottom line is that you asked for OPINIONS on the Article and personal thoughts.

You did not ask that people pick apart everyone else response line by line instead of just posting their own opinion.

[StevenSurprenant]

I ran into that problem often since have only 2.1 set up with no center speaker for HT. A way to fix this is to reposition your speakers, including either toe-in or toeing them out. Now no problem hearing the dialog :)

That's interesting. If I understand correctly, it's a problem (at least in part) with tonal balance. Changing it helps... I can believe that.

The other day I put on the movie "300" and I noticed that the dialog and the dialog's imaging was less than ideal in stereo. In particular, the image was spread out between the speakers rather than being a tight image in the center, plus the clarity was lacking somewhat. It sounded a little muffled. The background sounds were clear and imaged well. Since many movies sound pretty good in stereo, I tend to think that it's a software issue with this movie.

When I listen to music, the clarity and imaging is really very decent, When a performer moves around, you can "see" where they are in the soundstage, but with movie dialog, not so much or at all. Apparently, there are different recording techniques for the two formats, or so it seems.

We've all put in that recording that sounds perfect (or really good), whether in stereo or surround, so we know that it's possible to achieve this level of audio with the equipment we have.

The fact is that, like all thing is life, there are good audio engineers and some that are not so good. They all probably see their work as perfection, but that is not reality. Since we all have heard recordings that sound very good on our systems, we have to assume that poor performance is not a hardware issue, but rather a software issue. After all, don't we all have good recordings and bad recordings?

Speaking of formats, since my recent retubing of my amp, digital has improved tremendously. With any decent recording, the images are solid and the soundstage is huge, however, digital still has that artificial sound that grates on the nerves after an extended listening session, that is with many CD's. I do have one CD that sounds extremely good in digital, and that CD is “This is K2 HD Sound!. Various Artists”. I can listen to this all day long and love every second of it. It is very analog sounding with no headache inducing sound. I don't know how this CD is any different than the rest (since it's still 16 bit), but whatever they did, it works.

As for surround music (SACD), I've heard people take both sides to this. Some claim that it is better than stereo and others say that stereo sounds better. I don't have an opinion on this.

John, I don't have a problem with T, he has a problem with me. I've been more than kind to him unless he starts ragging on me. I'm through with that. My final words on this is... There are many people here that go out of their way to help others with specific problems and to say that they're appreciated doesn't reflect enough how important these people are to the hobby. What T contributes rarely helps anyone and can be learned through a quick google search. Yes, theory is interesting, but most of us know enough to get the job done or can look it up without his opinion. He is a troll, as clearly demonstrated by his responses on this tread. There is no reason for me to respond to him. I know you don't want to get dragged into this and I respect that. This ends now. All I will say, (and this is it for me), is that, considering his abuse of fellow members, he is “not” an asset to this board. I'm done with this subject.

Worf, it was a good post. I'm sorry it got sidetracked.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If you re-read the original post, the OP asked "What do we think". That means he asked for our opinions. I know that is hard for some to grasp since all they want to do is argue and attempt to point out their superiority and attempt to make other look small. It's OK, we are all used to it here.

I think we are used to your uniformed, airheaded, unfactual opinions as well.


As for your second remark, spiteful as usual, the people I talk to are in the same pay scale as myself and below. We do not have the cash and multiple houses and spare gear as you do and I guess the people you associate with. We all know the Haves don't spend much time with the Have Not's except to belittle them.

Once again, you base everything on somebody's else's finances of which you know nothing about. You can save this green crap you just spewed up, it is not relevant to anything in this discussion.

The only have and have not here is audio and video education, and that is a definitely have not area with you. Anything goes with you, and that is why you get anything but great results in the end.


Glad you showed up. At least there were 4 posts yesterday.

Glad I could contribute. :ciappa:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I've also found that sometimes it helps to set the center channel louder than the rest. It doesn't always help and the dialog might only be slightly better. On occasion there are movies that nothing can be done with.

Set the center channel louder, and you get a collapsed L/R image. Stupid advice. Why don't you just get a quality center speaker identical to your L/R speakers, that will solve the problem entirely.


The last superman movie I watched at the theater (my sister talked me into it). There were many moments that I couldn't understand the dialog. I liked the movie, so I figure that I can watch it again, at home. Compared to our local theaters, home is always better.

Steve, It might help if you get your ears checked. I saw this movie in a screening room on the Warner lot before it was released. No trouble hearing dialog there. I purchased this movie on Bluray and listened to it on 3 of my systems. No problem with understanding dialog there either. So either you are hard of hearing, or you are just making crap up to support a point.

I'll take both for $500 dollars Alex....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That's interesting. If I understand correctly, it's a problem (at least in part) with tonal balance. Changing it helps... I can believe that.

The other day I put on the movie "300" and I noticed that the dialog and the dialog's imaging was less than ideal in stereo. In particular, the image was spread out between the speakers rather than being a tight image in the center, plus the clarity was lacking somewhat. It sounded a little muffled. The background sounds were clear and imaged well. Since many movies sound pretty good in stereo, I tend to think that it's a software issue with this movie.

Once again, caught contralying. First you state the most movies don't sound very good, then you say here many movies sound pretty good in stereo. So which lie is it?

Secondly, you played back a movie designed for discrete surround in two channel, and expected the dialog to be clear when it was mixed for a hard center channel, not a phantom image. Properly placed stereo speakers are usually too wide for movie dialog. The dialog suffers because it is being stretched too wide, and that makes HRTF worse than with stereo music.


When I listen to music, the clarity and imaging is really very decent, When a performer moves around, you can "see" where they are in the soundstage, but with movie dialog, not so much or at all. Apparently, there are different recording techniques for the two formats, or so it seems.

Man, you just had a Duh moment here. Of course they are mixed differently. Both also require a different speaker set up as well. No movie is mixed for phantom imaging the dialog...NO MOVIE!


We've all put in that recording that sounds perfect (or really good), whether in stereo or surround, so we know that it's possible to achieve this level of audio with the equipment we have.

Since your system is poorly set up, I am not sure you really know what the quality is on the disc.


The fact is that, like all thing is life, there are good audio engineers and some that are not so good.

And what credentials and experience in mixing do you have that allows you to pass judgement on those that have both? I would say none.


They all probably see their work as perfection, but that is not reality. Since we all have heard recordings that sound very good on our systems, we have to assume that poor performance is not a hardware issue, but rather a software issue. After all, don't we all have good recordings and bad recordings?

This is true, and we also have good systems and bad systems. Apparently your falls in the latter since you seem to be having so many problem with software all of the time.


Speaking of formats, since my recent retubing of my amp, digital has improved tremendously. With any decent recording, the images are solid and the soundstage is huge, however, digital still has that artificial sound that grates on the nerves after an extended listening session, that is with many CD's. I do have one CD that sounds extremely good in digital, and that CD is “This is K2 HD Sound!. Various Artists”. I can listen to this all day long and love every second of it. It is very analog sounding with no headache inducing sound. I don't know how this CD is any different than the rest (since it's still 16 bit), but whatever they did, it works.

Get rid of the cheap D/A converters you are using, and you won't have this problem. Even low resolution 16bit can sound pretty darn good through a high quality D/A converter.


As for surround music (SACD), I've heard people take both sides to this. Some claim that it is better than stereo and others say that stereo sounds better. I don't have an opinion on this.

Progress. You finally kept you mouth shut about something you know nothing about.


John, I don't have a problem with T, he has a problem with me.

I don't even know you. What I have a problem with is your stupid ignorant statements you try and pass off as fact.


I've been more than kind to him unless he starts ragging on me. I'm through with that. My final words on this is... There are many people here that go out of their way to help others with specific problems and to say that they're appreciated doesn't reflect enough how important these people are to the hobby.

Cheese and crackers with that whine?



What T contributes rarely helps anyone and can be learned through a quick google search.

Oh really? Google has not helped you one bit, as you continue to make stupid ignorant statements time and time again. Google is no replacement for almost 30 years experience of mixing soundtracks, film scores, multichannel audio, and live sound. The fact we have google and you still manage to get everything wrong shows that if google was the answer, then you are too stupid to use it. Google cannot tell you how to properly place a microphone in a specific room - that takes experience. Google cannot teach you how to get the right gain to get a superior signal to noise ratio, only experience can do that. Google does not even get compression versus limiting right, so it would be stupid to rely on it.



Yes, theory is interesting, but most of us know enough to get the job done or can look it up without his opinion. He is a troll, as clearly demonstrated by his responses on this tread. There is no reason for me to respond to him. I know you don't want to get dragged into this and I respect that. This ends now. All I will say, (and this is it for me), is that, considering his abuse of fellow members, he is “not” an asset to this board. I'm done with this subject.

Steve, if I am a troll, then you are a dumb ignorant a$$. Your problem is that you do not have the necessary knowledge and experience in audio to effectively debate me, so what you try and do is dismiss my knowledge and experience as google born. Sorry, but that does not work. Why don't you just admit you are audio ignorant, and your system is piss poorly set up, and then we can move on from there.


Worf, it was a good post. I'm sorry it got sidetracked.

It didn't get sidetracked. It got overwhelmed with your ignorant, inexperienced, unscientific, anecdotal nonsense.

[Smokey]

The other day I put on the movie "300" and I noticed that the dialog and the dialog's imaging was less than ideal in stereo. In particular, the image was spread out between the speakers rather than being a tight image in the center, plus the clarity was lacking somewhat. It sounded a little muffled. The background sounds were clear and imaged well. Since many movies sound pretty good in stereo, I tend to think that it's a software issue with this movie.

When I listen to music, the clarity and imaging is really very decent, When a performer moves around, you can "see" where they are in the soundstage, but with movie dialog, not so much or at all. Apparently, there are different recording techniques for the two formats, or so it seems.

Room accoustics and speaker sonic signature probably also play a role in differences between dialog and music playback.

The best way to test this is to feed (2.1 system) speakers mono dialog and see how it sound. If dialog sound is too "hollow" or too thin, then your speakers need placement adjustments. Toeing speakers out seem to help alot in dialog clarity.

But as Sir TT mentioned, speakers that are optimized acoustically for stereo imaging probaly will not have the best dialog performance :)


Secondly, you played back a movie designed for discrete surround in two channel, and expected the dialog to be clear when it was mixed for a hard center channel, not a phantom image. Properly placed stereo speakers are usually too wide for movie dialog. The dialog suffers because it is being stretched too wide, and that makes HRTF worse than with stereo music.

That is exactly the problem I had when play dialog on my 2.1 system. The sound was too thin and it sounded like coming out of a can (especially mono dialog feed) :)

[Hyfi]

Glad I could contribute. :ciappa:

Please point me to your reply to the original post of your thoughts on the article that was linked. That would be helpful.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Please point me to your reply to the original post of your thoughts on the article that was linked. That would be helpful.

Go back and look at my first comments brightness. What would be helpful to me is that you actually read it.

[StevenSurprenant]

Room accoustics and speaker sonic signature probably also play a role in differences between dialog and music playback.

The best way to test this is to feed (2.1 system) speakers mono dialog and see how it sound. If dialog sound is too "hollow" or too thin, then your speakers need placement adjustments. Toeing speakers out seem to help alot in dialog clarity.

But as Sir TT mentioned, speakers that are optimized acoustically for stereo imaging probaly will not have the best dialog performance :)

That is exactly the problem I had when play dialog on my 2.1 system. The sound was too thin and it sounded like coming out of a can (especially mono dialog feed) :)

Actually, with 300, it doesn't sound thin, the dialog is just spread out too much (kind of like when your speakers are out of phase), but I do understand what you're talking about. Different movies sound different, some have good imaging with the dialog centered with a tight image. I have played some mono movies that are way to tight where the image is coming from a narrow point in space between the speakers (from a can?). All I know is that some movies do a really good job, some do not. I assume it's the way it's mixed.

When I first got into stereo I quickly realized how too much speaker distance between speakers could make an image sound hollow or too close together make the soundstage seem small. I also understood how toeing speakers affects the tonal balance. Some speakers are better or worse, meaning that with some speakers, positioning is more critical, while other speakers image quite well at wider distances. I suspect that it's a matter of speaker dispersion. I've spent considerable time moving speakers around to achieve the desired effect. With my present speakers I don't have much trouble creating a good image with most any setup as long as I adhere somewhat to the equilateral triangle. Even when I am standing a few feet in front of the speakers, the image is still tight, as it should be.

I have a few stereo recordings where the performer speaks and the image is believable. The dialog in these cases is perfect. There is no reason that a mixing technician can't do the same for movies, and some do. I think that writing this off to “not mixed for stereo”, is a cop out considering that most people, at home, watch movies listening to it on TV speakers in stereo. However, the fact that TV speakers are close together minimizes the problem.

Bottom line...

If movie companies are going to put out movies that aren't mixed for stereo, they should put a warning on the package to that affect or get off their duff and do it right. Some people can do a good job and make a quality product, the others tend to blame the hardware or make excuses when someone complains.

Quite frankly, this is a minor problem since I rarely watch the same movies more than once.

[Mr Peabody]

I'm sure not all movie soundtracks are treated the same as in audio recordings, however, some of the blame can be hardware or processing ability. There are so many configurations people use it would seem a bit silly to engineer a special soundtrack for every possible speaker set up. Some have rear channels, some don't, some center, maybe a rear center, some none. it's easier to have the processor compensate for these configurations by directing the information that can't be delivered via a speaker to other channels where there are speakers.

[StevenSurprenant]

That makes sense. All I'm saying is that it seems some people seem to be able to get the job done with acceptable results. There is no reason why it can't be done all the time. I would think that more people own stereos compared to surround and so that would seem to be a priority.

Like I said, it's not every movie.

What would be nice is to be able to adjust the soundtracks ourselves. Being that this is the computer age, anything is possible. I don't mean get every track of the movie, but separate it into categories like dialog and background and music and "boom and bang" and maybe a couple more (like they do in some computer games). Then allow the user to change each one. One example would be to lower the volume of "boom and bang" or just limit it dynamically. Any number of things are possible.

[Feanor]

Bottom line...

If movie companies are going to put out movies that aren't mixed for stereo, they should put a warning on the package to that affect or get off their duff and do it right. Some people can do a good job and make a quality product, the others tend to blame the hardware or make excuses when someone complains.

I have to agree basically. Films ought to include a stereo mix and, in any case, should clearly indicate all the audio mixes on the disc.

[StevenSurprenant]

Forgive me if I sound a little hard nosed. It's just that someone once told me that they knew what they were doing and that I should just accept it as is. Any other business would go out of business if they didn't listen to their customers. Anyway, thanks.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have to agree basically. Films ought to include a stereo mix and, in any case, should clearly indicate all the audio mixes on the disc.

Quote Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant View Post
Bottom line...

If movie companies are going to put out movies that aren't mixed for stereo, they should put a warning on the package to that affect or get off their duff and do it right. Some people can do a good job and make a quality product, the others tend to blame the hardware or make excuses when someone complains.
I have to agree basically. Films ought to include a stereo mix and, in any case, should clearly indicate all the audio mixes on the disc.

Bill, I hate to say it again(well maybe not), but this is just another stupid idea that Steve has come up with.

1. Remember your market. Our market is film sound, not stereo audio. The CD, vinyl, and downloads have the music market covered, so there is no need to compromise a film soundtrack to accommodate the two channel folks. They are the ones stuck in the past, and the film industry has already moved on to the future - which is immersive 3D audio.

2. This is a classic case of an old dude(Steven) wanting an entire industry to conform to his poorly set up two channel system, rather than the dummy stepping up to the plate to conform with standards that have been set for decades.

3. We have already tried multiple mixes on disc. Look at the early days of DVD(1997) where there was a stereo mixdown track, and a 5.1 mix. Our survey's back then showed there was little interest in listening to the stereo mix, so many studio's dropped it. The marketplace has spoken, and it apparently does not agree with Steven backwards opinion.

4. There is no place in the film audio chain that stereo is used. Film soundtracks are designed for the theater, whether it is the professional one, or somebody's home theater. If you want to hear the soundtrack properly played back, one must step up to the 5.1 plate - not expect us to step back into a total audio compromise.

5. There is no way to make dialog clear and intelligible in two channel. I have explained this to the point of fatigue. You cannot stuff 6 channels of information into two without compromising the entire mix. If you have dialog, music, and effects coming from just two speakers, something is going to suffer, and it is usually dialog.

6. Movies are a shared experience, not a singular one. If you have three viewers/ listeners(as I often do) listening to a film soundtrack, the two folks off center will hear the sound from the speaker closest to them. It is too difficult for the brain to combine the actors position on the screen, to the dialog coming from the left or right speaker. The brain will always "tell" you the sound is not coming from the screen, but from a speaker.

6. As much bandwidth and the Bluray disc has, it still has limitations. Bluray is the optimum way of watching movies(currently). There is only 54mbps bandwidth each and every second to play with here. With the movies taking between 40-45mbps, there is not enough bandwidth for video, metadata, a lossless or uncompressed track, and a high quality lossless or uncompressed stereo track on the same disc. Remember, there may be one soundtrack, but the dialog is stored in several languages which also takes up bandwidth, and space on the disc.

Bill, in the future, look on the back cover of your Bluray disc. Bluray has several must carry sound formats, and they are all listed on the back cover. Usually there is a PCM, DTS master audio, or Dolby TrueHD track, and a Dolby Digital lossy track. If the movie is older, then there is the original encoded stereo or mono track that must be decoded to keep the dialog in the center channel, or to properly spread the stereo(or Dolby Stereo) mix to their encoded channels.

I can name another half dozen reasons why Steven's idea is stupid, but I have made my point. The most important point here is the market has already decided they do not want stereo tracks on their Bluray's. The market will not even support Blurays with lossy DTS or Dolby Digital.

Film sound is marching forward, and marching forward very quickly. Catch up, or shut up - that is the advice I would give Steven.

[Feanor]

Bill, I hate to say it again(well maybe no), but this is just another stupid idea that Steve has come up with.
...
Film sound is marching forward, and marching forward very quickly. Catch up, or shut up - that is the advice I would give Steven.
Sir T, you explain your position very well but I'm still inclined to agree that a stereo track is desirable for the few who want it.

Personally I have an m/c system and that is what I almost use for movies. It's not up to your, very high, standards but it works pretty well. On the other hand my wife occasionally watches movies in stereo on another system mainly used to watch TV.

This is a point on which you have consistently shown insensitivity. Many people continue to use modest, stereo systems because of cost and/or difficulty placing surround speakers. In an era of stagnating or declining median incomes and the impoverishment of hte working and lower middle classes, the low-end market for all sorts of relatively low end products will grow, not shrink.

[Hyfi]

Go back and look at my first comments brightness. What would be helpful to me is that you actually read it.

OK, so here are your first comments. They are not really about the article or the original post. They are comments about what I posted and nothing much else. Maybe you need to re-read your own comments. Also, go back and note that not ONCE did you respond to the OP or the article, but rather played your normal game of picking apart everyone else replies sentence by sentence.


Not only have you never cared about it, but it is patently obvious you have no experience with it either. There are so few recordings that have discrete instruments in the surrounds that it is not worth mentioning. I have nearly 800 multichannel recordings, and maybe 15 of them have discrete instruments placed in the surrounds.

Have you ever been to a concert where all of the information hitting your ears is coming from the front only? I highly doubt it. How about the crowd noises happening from behind a orchestra? Not in any concert hall or venue I have been in.



You must be talking to folks in a reverberation chamber, because multichannel system are outselling 2 channel system by at least 20-1 based on NDP recent survey.

Anecdotal stories are only valuable within your own world. Your opinions have always been based on myths, outdated, recycled anecdotal information, and talk from a single minded crowd.

[Hyfi]

I think we are used to your uniformed, airheaded, unfactual opinions as well.

Once again, you base everything on somebody's else's finances of which you know nothing about. You can save this green crap you just spewed up, it is not relevant to anything in this discussion.



First of all, I do know about the finances of the people I referred to. How did you determine that I don't? ASSumption?

Secondly, can you explain to me the difference between an Unfactual Opinion, and a Factual Opinion when the definition of Opinion is "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge"?

Why do you think it's called an "Opinion", genius?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

OK, so here are your first comments. They are not really about the article or the original post. They are comments about what I posted and nothing much else. Maybe you need to re-read your own comments. Also, go back and note that not ONCE did you respond to the OP or the article, but rather played your normal game of picking apart everyone else replies sentence by sentence.

Cherry pick much?. I think you do this because I addressed your comments first - which by the way were stupid. But let's check out my comments with Smoke which address the article directly - can we George Washington(maybe he could not tell a lie, but you did).

He is not correct on so many fronts. Steve has openly admitted that he has never owned a quality surround system. So his perspective is rather limited in the first place. He also openly admitted that he lays down when he listens to music. That is not great for either 2 channel or multichannel. Steve is a casual music listener, and there are some of us who are active listeners who listen to music like we listen in a concert venue or hall.

http://forums.audioreview.com/home-theater-video/welp-stevos-again-time-surround-sound-dead-39991.html

Comment #12. Read it if you have the capacity to do so.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

First of all, I do know about the finances of the people I referred to. How did you determine that I don't? ASSumption?

I know because you made this stupid statement stupid.

As for your second remark, spiteful as usual, the people I talk to are in the same pay scale as myself and below. We do not have the cash and multiple houses and spare gear as you do and I guess the people you associate with. We all know the Haves don't spend much time with the Have Not's except to belittle them.

You made this statement, and you don't know if I am a have, have less, little, or nothing. So you were referring to me, but proclaim you do know my financial position. BS! Your nose is growing. The haves have very little time to belittle anyone, especially the have nots. I have no time to belittle you - you do a great job all by yourself.

Secondly, one of the biggest, foolish mistake you consistently make is it is all about throwing money at the equipment. That is not my approach at all, and if you could actually read my post(which I don't think you are capable of understanding) then you would understand this. If a component(no matter of cost), could not reach my standards of compliance to industry approved spec's(THX, PM3, Academy, and multichannel AES standards), then no matter what it costs(tube amps come to mind), I am not going to purchase it. It is not about component cost, it is about performance capabilities for me.




Secondly, can you explain to me the difference between an Unfactual Opinion, and a Factual Opinion when the definition of Opinion is "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge"?

Easy(put on your extra brain power, you are going to need it based on what little you already posses.)

An unfactual opinion is subjective, not objective. A subjective opinion can be made in a closet, with a highly degraded pair of ears(like yours and Stevens). A factual opinion is based on established criteria and objective science. Listeners have their hearing tested. The room has been corrected for neutrality instead of personal colorations. And the tests stand up to scientific scrutiny. Your personal tastes do not stand up well against a 3000 person sample. Do you have the capacity to understand the difference between the two?

Doubt it based on experience.....


Why do you think it's called an "Opinion", genius?

There are two types of "opinion" airhead. An informed and educated one, and one that a monkey can come up with. You seem to fall in the monkey slot time and time again.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir T, you explain your position very well but I'm still inclined to agree that a stereo track is desirable for the few who want it.

Bill, we can't put everyone needs on a single disc. Stereo does not work very well with movies, and the market has spoken and does not want stereo. There is no way I would waste a dime adding a format for less than 1% of the market. I would not waste the bandwidth or the storage as well.


Personally I have an m/c system and that is what I almost use for movies. It's not up to your, very high, standards but it works pretty well. On the other hand my wife occasionally watches movies in stereo on another system mainly used to watch TV.

This would point out to me your wife's listening needs are not as critical as yours. This is no reason to include a stereo track on Bluray.


This is a point on which you have consistently shown insensitivity. Many people continue to use modest, stereo systems because of cost and/or difficulty placing surround speakers. In an era of stagnating or declining median incomes and the impoverishment of hte working and lower middle classes, the low-end market for all sorts of relatively low end products will grow, not shrink.

Here is something you continue to miss. The cost of decent performing equipment has dropped very sharply in the last decade. A quality receiver can be had for $1000 dollars, and that was not possible ten years ago. A decent projector can be had for $3000 or less, and that was not possible a decade ago. Thanks to Emotiva, a 5 channel amp can be had for less than a $1000 dollars. That was not possible five years ago. As a matter of fact Emotiva's pre-pro 5 channel amp combo goes for $1099 dollars, and reviews say the combo sets a new performance standard for this price range. Combine that with mid priced speakers, well setup, calibrated and voiced in a room with decent acoustics, and you can do a full 5.1 system for far less than you could a decade ago. Survey's have shown this.

The market for the low end has always been pretty strong. Look at the sales of Vizio televisions. They have always been underperformers when compared to Samsung, Sony, and Panasonic, but that has not prevented them from outselling them all.

[Hyfi]

I know because you made this stupid statement stupid.

As for your second remark, spiteful as usual, the people I talk to are in the same pay scale as myself and below. We do not have the cash and multiple houses and spare gear as you do and I guess the people you associate with. We all know the Haves don't spend much time with the Have Not's except to belittle them.

You made this statement, and you don't know if I am a have, have less, little, or nothing. So you were referring to me, but proclaim you do know my financial position. BS! Your nose is growing. The haves have very little time to belittle anyone, especially the have nots. I have no time to belittle you - you do a great job all by yourself.

Secondly, one of the biggest, foolish mistake you consistently make is it is all about throwing money at the equipment. That is not my approach at all, and if you could actually read my post(which I don't think you are capable of understanding) then you would understand this. If a component(no matter of cost), could not reach my standards of compliance to industry approved spec's(THX, PM3, Academy, and multichannel AES standards), then no matter what it costs(tube amps come to mind), I am not going to purchase it. It is not about component cost, it is about performance capabilities for me.





Easy(put on your extra brain power, you are going to need it based on what little you already posses.)

An unfactual opinion is subjective, not objective. A subjective opinion can be made in a closet, with a highly degraded pair of ears(like yours and Stevens). A factual opinion is based on established criteria and objective science. Listeners have their hearing tested. The room has been corrected for neutrality instead of personal colorations. And the tests stand up to scientific scrutiny. Your personal tastes do not stand up well against a 3000 person sample. Do you have the capacity to understand the difference between the two?

Doubt it based on experience.....



There are two types of "opinion" airhead. An informed and educated one, and one that a monkey can come up with. You seem to fall in the monkey slot time and time again.

Unless you have repeatedly lied to us here, you have talked about having multiple houses, multiple systems, gear in storage that you put systems together with for your children, bragged about all the gear you have and without actually saying it, refer to your close or over 6 figure salary if you actually had the jobs you claim to have had.

So now all of that is untrue? You really never made any money or have multiple houses? All the gear in your sig is just for bragging?

And of course the name calling continues because as usual, you have no other tactics.

By the way, when are you actually going to respond to the OP and the article? I still have not seen a single response to the OP here, just you picking apart all the other responses.

I am also not sure why you are directing comments about throwing money at gear my way. Other than 2 OPPO 93s and a cheap pair of Polk speakers for my gym room, I have not purchased any new gear for over 15 years. So please point out again all the money I have thrown at gear Terry.

[Feanor]

The cost of decent performing equipment has dropped very sharply in the last decade. A quality receiver can be had for $1000 dollars, and that was not possible ten years ago. A decent projector can be had for $3000 or less, and that was not possible a decade ago. Thanks to Emotiva, a 5 channel amp can be had for less than a $1000 dollars. That was not possible five years ago. As a matter of fact Emotiva's pre-pro 5 channel amp combo goes for $1099 dollars, and reviews say the combo sets a new performance standard for this price range. Combine that with mid priced speakers, well setup, calibrated and voiced in a room with decent acoustics, and you can do a full 5.1 system for far less than you could a decade ago. Survey's have shown this.

The market for the low end has always been pretty strong. Look at the sales of Vizio televisions. They have always been underperformers when compared to Samsung, Sony, and Panasonic, but that has not prevented them from outselling them all.

I wish I could afford this sort of equipment !!!! Sure, a buck buys you much more performance than it used to, but you're mistaken if you see the sort equipment above is accessible to the typical low-end consumer. People by Vizio because that's all they can afford. Personally I have to make do with an Onkyo TX-SR508, about C$500, and that only because I chose to spend some of my inheritance from my late mother. A "decent" projector is out of the question for me.

[Hyfi]

You made this statement, and you don't know if I am a have, have less, little, or nothing.



Interesting since nobody else here has an $85K Projector. Guess you got it used for a couple hundred right?

That's right, I was talking about you.

Try feeding us some more crap Terry.

[Auricauricle]

Stereo, mono, quadro....Heck, just enjoy the music, man! :ciappa:

[Hyfi]

Stereo, mono, quadro....Heck, just enjoy the music, man! :ciappa:

Blast from the past.

Hows it going?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Unless you have repeatedly lied to us here, you have talked about having multiple houses, multiple systems, gear in storage that you put systems together with for your children, bragged about all the gear you have and without actually saying it, refer to your close or over 6 figure salary if you actually had the jobs you claim to have had.

I have never talked about how I got those houses. I could have inherited them all, and only purchased one. I could have went in a partnership with my friends to purchase some or all of them. I have never discussed that, so what you do(as usual) is fill in the blanks with your own ignorant airheaded assumptions.


So now all of that is untrue? You really never made any money or have multiple houses? All the gear in your sig is just for bragging?

Looks like more ASSumptions to me.


And of course the name calling continues because as usual, you have no other tactics.

I call it as I see it. I have always thought you were pretty damn stupid, and you continue to confirm this over and over again.


By the way, when are you actually going to respond to the OP and the article? I still have not seen a single response to the OP here, just you picking apart all the other responses.

By the way, I already did through my response to Smoke. Can't you read? I don't have to respond to the OP to address the article. You respond how you want to, and I will do the same. Refrain from telling me how or who to respond to.


I am also not sure why you are directing comments about throwing money at gear my way. Other than 2 OPPO 93s and a cheap pair of Polk speakers for my gym room, I have not purchased any new gear for over 15 years. So please point out again all the money I have thrown at gear Terry.

First AZZhole, my name is not Terry. Second, I was talking about your comment to me.

You seem to have a problem distinguishing your butt from a hole in the ground. Does this happen to you much?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Interesting since nobody else here has an $85K Projector. Guess you got it used for a couple hundred right?

That's right, I was talking about you.

Try feeding us some more crap Terry.

You want to try again idiot? Lowfy, I don't have anything to prove to you, so you need to STFU and go get your life.

You can't taunt me, you can't insult me, but what you are doing is contining to show just how jealous you are because somebody worked their azz off and did well for themselves, and you ended up being a loser who couldn't afford to buy a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

You are nothing more the a jealous hater, and you don't and won't get any respect from me.

Bugger off loser. Go lick a frozen stop sign.

By the way stupid, my projector did not cost anywhere near $85K.

[Hyfi]

First AZZhole, my name is not Terry. Second, I was talking about your comment to me.

You seem to have a problem distinguishing your butt from a hole in the ground. Does this happen to you much?

I have a hard time distinguishing my Butt from you Terry. I really don't care what your name is, you are just Terry to me and you will NEVER be addressed as Sir Anything.

It must be nice to have the Ex Moderator Free Pass card here because you you would be thrown right off of the other forums I frequent from the tone of your first post here.

Keep up the good work saving me from myself, Terry! If anyone can do it it will be you.


I have never talked about how I got those houses. I could have inherited them all, and only purchased one. I could have went in a partnership with my friends to purchase some or all of them. I have never discussed that, so what you do(as usual) is fill in the blanks with your own ignorant airheaded assumptions.

You don't have to talk about it for it to be obvious. If you really had/have the jobs you say you do/did, and you were not making a 6 figure salary, then you are the real idiot, not the rest of us.

Now tell us again how you got that $85K Projector? Oh that's right, your grandma died and willed it to you. You are more stupid than you claim the rest of us to be if you think anyone is going to believe all this back peddling now. You have plenty more than most others here and you can;t hide that fact.

Why do you even take the time to respond to me? It seems you are just lowering yourself to be as stupid as I am by taking the time.

You know I only respond to you to continue to push your buttons, which seems to work EVERY time. When are you gonna learn?

A per the response to the OP, earlier you told me that your first response was addressing the OP. But in reality, your first post was to attack me as usual. Now it's a response to Smokey. Which one is it or can't you keep track of your own BS?

Have a nice day, Terry!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I wish I could afford this sort of equipment !!!! Sure, a buck buys you much more performance than it used to, but you're mistaken if you see the sort equipment above is accessible to the typical low-end consumer. People by Vizio because that's all they can afford. Personally I have to make do with an Onkyo TX-SR508, about C$500, and that only because I chose to spend some of my inheritance from my late mother. A "decent" projector is out of the question for me.

Bill, you have to be smart with your purchases if you are on a budget or limited income. Christmas sales, black friday sales, bogo sales, spring clearances are all ways to get decent equipment for cheap(relative) prices.

Personally, I have never paid retail prices for any of my equipment. I bargain, make deals and agreements, and in some cases have waited for sales. I have even allowed a speaker and amp builder to turn my reference theater into is personal testing lab. In exchange, I get to keep what he builds and installs if I like it. Also, working for a studio, I can get high end used equipment for next to nothing. This is how I got my "so called"(out of ignorance) $85k projector.

Everyone has their priorities based on their income, and I recognize that. However, I have seen people who make very little money pull together a very good, if not excellent system by saving their money, and waiting for sales.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have a hard time distinguishing my Butt from you Terry. I really don't care what your name is, you are just Terry to me and you will NEVER be addressed as Sir Anything.

You have a hard time distinguishing your butt from your own face, so I don't feel insulted by that comment at all. It just proves just how stupid and airheaded your really are.


It must be nice to have the Ex Moderator Free Pass card here because you you would be thrown right off of the other forums I frequent from the tone of your first post here.

Well stupid, we are not on the other forums.


Keep up the good work saving me from myself, Terry! If anyone can do it it will be you.

I don't want to save you. You could drop dead today and I wouldn't care. I would even give you the poison.




You don't have to talk about it for it to be obvious. If you really had/have the jobs you say you do/did, and you were not making a 6 figure salary, then you are the real idiot, not the rest of us.

I don't think I have discussed my salary, or anything else that personal on ANY forum. It is none of your business. Until I confirm or deny anything, it is not obvious, it is another airheaded ASSumption.


Now tell us again how you got that $85K Projector? Oh that's right, your grandma died and willed it to you. You are more stupid than you claim the rest of us to be if you think anyone is going to believe all this back peddling now. You have plenty more than most others here and you can;t hide that fact.

Lowfy, you are not really that bright. My projector did not cost $85K even if purchased retail. Digital Projection does not have projectors designed for the consumer market that cost anywhere near that price. Of course as a cheap bottom feeder, you would not know this. Only their commercial products carry that kind of price tag.


Why do you even take the time to respond to me? It seems you are just lowering yourself to be as stupid as I am by taking the time.

Perhaps I am giving you an opportunity to raise yourself up(if that is possible). Even a skid row loser like yourself has the potential of raising themselves up. Perhaps you don't have that potential.


You know I only respond to you to continue to push your buttons, which seems to work EVERY time. When are you gonna learn?

Did it ever occur to you that I respond to you for the same reasons? Of course not, you always think you have outsmarted somebody or have the upper hand. That is why I think you are such an idiot.


A per the response to the OP, earlier you told me that your first response was addressing the OP. But in reality, your first post was to attack me as usual. Now it's a response to Smokey. Which one is it or can't you keep track of your own BS?

Have a nice day, Terry!

Attack you? Why waste my time? I am attacking your ignorant statements, which spout out of your keyboard endlessly. Hell, I don't know why you even posted to this thread. You don't know jack crap about surround, and that is patently obvious.

You have a nice day as well ignorant idiot!!!!!

[Hyfi]

Terry, if you were pushing my buttons, I would be the one doing all the name calling. And again, if you actually had the jobs you claim, any moron can do the math. Except maybe you.

Doesn't one of your great status have something better to do than hang out here taking thread dumps?

[Auricauricle]

Way I see it, you know you can only do with what you've got. Got a small room, play small music on small speakers; got a big room play big music on big speakers. In my bungalow, my little Spendors kick butt on jazz and chamber ensembles. On bigger music, a nice set of phones are all it takes to get my toes tapping. Sure, I throw in a sub now and then, but the house is too small and my wife and cat shed too much hair. I just give it enough to enjoy the sound of distant thunder, if you get my meaning. A little tickle from the bass viols and tympani. A middle channel (Paradigm) is nice: gives a nice spread, but the place is too small and the accommodations too crapmed to give it full voice. If I lived somewhere where space was available I might go bigger, listen to big. (And this has been said already, if not you can quote me on it): If it fits it fits. As far as adding more, nah: let the room speak for itself. Now, if you don't mind, I'll go back to the Bartok and let y'all sort out what you've got to sort out...

[Hyfi]

By the way stupid, my projector did not cost anywhere near $85K.

Here is the Projector you list in your Signature
Digital Projection Titan Reference 1080p 3D DLP Projector | Sound & Vision (http://www.soundandvision.com/content/digital-projection-titan-reference-1080p-3d-dlp-projector)

So if yours did not cost what the review says, maybe you listed the wrong one in your signature by mistake....or maybe not.

"Sir Terrence

Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
200" SI Black Diamond II screen
Oppo BDP-103
Grass Valley Cell based Pro HD A/V switcher
Audyssey MultiEQ XT32 EQ module
Audyssey XT32 Sub module
9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
5 custom CAL amps for subs
3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
8 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surrounds
3 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
THX Style Baffle wall"

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Here is the Projector you list in your Signature
Digital Projection Titan Reference 1080p 3D DLP Projector | Sound & Vision (http://www.soundandvision.com/content/digital-projection-titan-reference-1080p-3d-dlp-projector)

So if yours did not cost what the review says, maybe you listed the wrong one in your signature by mistake....or maybe not.

"Sir Terrence

Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
200" SI Black Diamond II screen
Oppo BDP-103
Grass Valley Cell based Pro HD A/V switcher
Audyssey MultiEQ XT32 EQ module
Audyssey XT32 Sub module
9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
5 custom CAL amps for subs
3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
8 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surrounds
3 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
THX Style Baffle wall"

Read my response to Bill stupid.

A. I didn't pay retail for my projector. And if I did, it still would not cost $85k
B. Digital Projection has MANY models with the Titan name

Digital Projection TITAN 1080p 330-3D L
Digital Projection TITAN 1080p 330-3D P
Digital Projection TITAN 1080p 330-3D P Ultra Contrast
Digital Projection TITAN 1080p 330-L
Digital Projection TITAN 1080p 330-P
Digital Projection Titan 1080p 3D-L
Digital Projection Titan 1080p 3D-L Ultra Contrast
Digital Projection Titan 1080p 3D-P
Digital Projection Titan 1080p 3D-P Ultra Contrast
Digital Projection TITAN 1080p 660
Digital Projection TITAN 1080p 660 Ultra Contrast
Digital Projection TITAN 1080p 660-3D
Digital Projection TITAN 1080p 660-3D Ultra Contrast
Digital Projection TITAN 1080p 800 3D
Digital Projection Titan 1080p Dual Quad 3D(This is the model in the picture)

That is just a few of them.

C. The projector in the link is NOT the same projector as mine.
D. Even at full retail, the model of the Titan I have didn't cost anywhere near $85,000.
E. That model is a 2010 model that is no longer made. Mine is a early 2012 model.
F. The model in this picture is a two lamp model. Mine has single VERY powerful lamp.

In the future stupid, do better research so you know exactly what you are talking about. Even though I enjoy making you look stupid, it is still very painful to watch you flail like fish out of water.

[Hyfi]

Read my response to Bill stupid.

A. I didn't pay retail for my projector. And if I did, it still would not cost $85k
B. Digital Projection has MANY models with the Titan name

Digital Projection TITAN 1080p 330-3D L
Digital Projection TITAN 1080p 330-3D P
Digital Projection TITAN 1080p 330-3D P Ultra Contrast
Digital Projection TITAN 1080p 330-L
Digital Projection TITAN 1080p 330-P
Digital Projection Titan 1080p 3D-L
Digital Projection Titan 1080p 3D-L Ultra Contrast
Digital Projection Titan 1080p 3D-P
Digital Projection Titan 1080p 3D-P Ultra Contrast
Digital Projection TITAN 1080p 660
Digital Projection TITAN 1080p 660 Ultra Contrast
Digital Projection TITAN 1080p 660-3D
Digital Projection TITAN 1080p 660-3D Ultra Contrast
Digital Projection TITAN 1080p 800 3D
Digital Projection Titan 1080p Dual Quad 3D(This is the model in the picture)

That is just a few of them.

C. The projector in the link is NOT the same projector as mine.
D. Even at full retail, the model of the Titan I have didn't cost anywhere near $85,000.
E. That model is a 2010 model that is no longer made. Mine is a early 2012 model.
F. The model in this picture is a two lamp model. Mine has single VERY powerful lamp.

In the future stupid, do better research so you know exactly what you are talking about. Even though I enjoy making you look stupid, it is still very painful to watch you flail like fish out of water.

Thanks Terrie!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Terry, if you were pushing my buttons, I would be the one doing all the name calling. And again, if you actually had the jobs you claim, any moron can do the math. Except maybe you.

Stupid, you cannot do the math if you have no detail. You can't ASSume your way to factual information. I have never stated my salary, never stated how I purchased my equipment, never stated the cost of my equipment, and never given any personal detail on anything on any forum. What you are doing here(and you always do) is trying to fill in the blanks with your ASSumptions, not factual information. A guess will never get you to facts.

Only idiots like you do this.


Doesn't one of your great status have something better to do than hang out here taking thread dumps?

Don't you? I have a suggestion for ya. Go back to school so you can get a better job. That way you don't have to come to forums like this jealously crying about what somebody else has, and you don't. You won't have to hate on somebody else's success just because you are a loser.

No go....run!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thanks Terrie!

There is nobody on this forum with that name stupid.

[Hyfi]

There is nobody on this forum with that name stupid.

You responded though

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You responded though

You also responded to stupid....

[Hyfi]

You also responded to stupid....

That should be "too" not "to" stupid

[JohnMichael]

Thanks for the quality posts. Another hate thread. Will be closing soon.

[Hyfi]

Good, it's about time. It should have been stopped at the first attack and name calling response from your buddy.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That should be "too" not "to" stupid

Wrong again Idiot. Not only do you not know anything about audio, but your grammar sucks as well.

Too denotes excessive or also. It's too hot. I am going too.

If you don't want to express excessive or also, you always use to.

Now about that education......

[JohnMichael]

A difference of opinion is not name calling. Oh and he is not the only one who enjoys name calling.

[Hyfi]

A difference of opinion is not name calling. Oh and he is not the only one who enjoys name calling.

That's right, after many civil responses to name calling posts, I finally said Moron and Stupid. Now go back and count how many times your friend did.

So you don't have to count, and I am sure I missed a few.

1-Wrong again Idiot.
2-That is what the center channel is supposed to do dummy!
3-I think we are used to your uniformed, airheaded, unfactual opinions as well.
4-What I have a problem with is your stupid ignorant statements you try and pass off as fact.
5-Steve, if I am a troll, then you are a dumb ignorant a$$.
6-I call it as I see it. I have always thought you were pretty damn stupid
7-First AZZhole, my name is not Terry.
8-You want to try again idiot?
9-Bugger off loser.
10-By the way stupid,
11-Well stupid, we are not on the other forums.
12-Even a skid row loser like yourself
13-That is why I think you are such an idiot.
14-You have a nice day as well ignorant idiot!!!!!
15-Read my response to Bill stupid.
16-In the future stupid,
17-Stupid, you cannot do the math
18-Only idiots like you do this.
19-just because you are a loser.
20-There is nobody on this forum with that name stupid.
21-You also responded to stupid....

I guess this is a "Difference of Opinion" in your two faced moderation.

[Hyfi]

You want to try again idiot? Lowfy, I don't have anything to prove to you, so you need to STFU and go get your life.

You can't taunt me, you can't insult me, but what you are doing is contining to show just how jealous you are because somebody worked their azz off and did well for themselves, and you ended up being a loser who couldn't afford to buy a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

You are nothing more the a jealous hater, and you don't and won't get any respect from me.

Bugger off loser. Go lick a frozen stop sign.

By the way stupid, my projector did not cost anywhere near $85K.

Pretty funny. I missed this. First you try to say that you may or may not have anything. Then you say I am jealous of what you have and worked for. Which is it Terry?

And you have absolutely no idea what I do, what my job is, or how much money I have in the market.

PB&J = Lobster to me.

[JohnMichael]

That's right, after many civil responses to name calling posts, I finally said Moron and Stupid. Now go back and count how many times your friend did.

So you don't have to count, and I am sure I missed a few.

1-Wrong again Idiot.
2-That is what the center channel is supposed to do dummy!
3-I think we are used to your uniformed, airheaded, unfactual opinions as well.
4-What I have a problem with is your stupid ignorant statements you try and pass off as fact.
5-Steve, if I am a troll, then you are a dumb ignorant a$$.
6-I call it as I see it. I have always thought you were pretty damn stupid
7-First AZZhole, my name is not Terry.
8-You want to try again idiot?
9-Bugger off loser.
10-By the way stupid,
11-Well stupid, we are not on the other forums.
12-Even a skid row loser like yourself
13-That is why I think you are such an idiot.
14-You have a nice day as well ignorant idiot!!!!!
15-Read my response to Bill stupid.
16-In the future stupid,
17-Stupid, you cannot do the math
18-Only idiots like you do this.
19-just because you are a loser.
20-There is nobody on this forum with that name stupid.
21-You also responded to stupid....

I guess this is a "Difference of Opinion" in your two faced moderation.



Wow I guess you told me. Did you notice how I said "he" is not the only one who enjoys name calling. I am aware of his approach but am unable to figure why someone would keep baiting him. Now I would like to see a numbered list of your insults. Oh and changing his name counts. I will be checking back to see if you have fulfilled your assignment.

[Hyfi]

Wow I guess you told me. Did you notice how I said "he" is not the only one who enjoys name calling. I am aware of his approach but am unable to figure why someone would keep baiting him. Now I would like to see a numbered list of your insults. Oh and changing his name counts. I will be checking back to see if you have fulfilled your assignment.

Easy

ASSumption
Moron
Stupid
Terry
Terrie

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Pretty funny. I missed this. First you try to say that you may or may not have anything. Then you say I am jealous of what you have and worked for. Which is it Terry?

Looks like you'll have to figure this out on your own.

Your jealousy is pretty damn obvious.


And you have absolutely no idea what I do, what my job is, or how much money I have in the market.

And I don't care either.


PB&J = Lobster to me.

I bet dog crap is lobster to you as well.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This crap is so predictable it is not funny.

Stupid makes stupid statement. He get's called out on his stupid statement. He complains that another poster would be kicked out of other forums for the way he talks to stupid. Then stupid starts crying like a baby, and attacking the moderator.

How many times has this played out? 3 times too many.

What stupid does not seem to get is everyone see's him for exactly who he is, and the very thing he is complaining about he is doing it himself.

How stupid is that?

[Hyfi]

Looks like you'll have to figure this out on your own.

Your jealousy is pretty damn obvious.



And I don't care either.



I bet dog crap is lobster to you as well.


Why do you think I am jealous? Really? I am doing just fine for myself and will go first.

I was a Journeyman Toolmaker for 25 years. The last 10 years of those 25, I did 3D Solid Modeling of custom Machine Design, made the parts, put the machines together and installed them where they were going.

At 42, I went back to school and got a degree graduating with a 3.975 GPA only because I went during the day full time but had to take some English classes at night with the Criminal Justice class. I spaced on a test after the teacher had to buy the Schoolhouse Rock DVD to teach grammar to them so I screwed up my 4.0.
Now I am a Principal Support Consultant for a Global Clinical Trials and Regulatory Publishing company for the last 8 years..

Paid my first house off when I was 30. Paid the second one off when I was 40.

Why would I be jealous of you? That has to be some of the most inflated ego speaking going on here. NOBODY is jealous of you. I only tried to point out your contradictions as to what you may or may not have. I don't give a hoot about your projector or your other possessions.

If I was going to be jealous of anybody, it would be all the people I interact with daily that have REAL systems. Not 25 y/o stuff like I have or your old Onkyos. And it really isn't jealousy because if I wanted to blow my retirement fund, I too could have one. I just choose not to.

So what's your story?
Who are you really?
Why do you think people are jealous of you?

[JohnMichael]

Easy

ASSumption
Moron
Stupid
Terry
Terrie


I counted 9 posts where you either chose to change his name, call him genius, compared your butt to him, any moron can do the math, by mistake...or maybe not, even a feminized version of Terrence. Almost all your posts to him were baiting. These ugly threads are not as one sided as people might like to think.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.