Your Best Audio/Video Pick-up of 2009

[E-Stat]

Wow E, I am surprised that you found IMAX's audio to be just mediocre

We have different points of reference. None of the twenty or so IMAX theatres I've attended has sound even approaching the resolution of the best audio I've heard. Zero depth and no finesse. Loud horns that no one would ever mistake for the live unamplified event. Everything sounds electronic. What do you expect from the JBL drivers used by Sonics Associates?

Are you sure it wasn't fake IMAX?

Fake IMAX? What is that?

The real IMAX has the 8 story screen, the 14,000 watt worth of power, and two surrounds as opposed to the common array of speakers. It uses the basic 5.1 channel setup with a front height channel the fake IMAX does not have. I have found the real IMAX sound system to be head and shoulders above the typical theater sound system.

Above the "typical theatre sound system". That isn't saying much since that sucks! In nearly twenty years of attending IMAX films (for which the video is incredible), the audio has never rendered the resolution or spatial characteristics I've heard in countless audio systems. As I indicated earlier, it is powerful and loud. Quantitative, not qualitative. It is all about the picture. Which is truly incredible as I've noted. Avatar is a work of art!

IMAX is a 2011 upgrade

Kewl, dude! The multi-projector Cinerama of the 60s I saw (Grand Prix, Sound of Music, etc) has never matched the video resolution of the huge lateral 70mm format. It is a pity the sound is not even in the same class.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

We have different points of reference. None of the twenty or so IMAX theatres I've attended has sound even approaching the resolution of the best audio I've heard. Zero depth and no finesse. Loud horns that no one would ever mistake for the live unamplified event. Everything sounds electronic. What do you expect from the JBL drivers used by Sonics Associates?

You are comparing apples and oranges here. The purpose of a theatrical sound system is not to sound as good as a home based audio system, but to cover many seats with good sound as possible. Some theatrical systems are better at this than others. Sonic Associates systems don't use JBL drivers, their whole sound system was totally proprietary down to the drivers. The fake IMAX uses a JBL based theatrical system.

Fake IMAX? What is that?

Fake IMAX= digital files at 2k resolution, a JBL based sound system, and smaller screen

Real IMAX= 70mm film set on its side, 8 story screen, and the custom sound system built by Sonic Associates.

Above the "typical theatre sound system". That isn't saying much since that sucks! In nearly twenty years of attending IMAX films (for which the video is incredible), the audio has never rendered the resolution or spatial characteristics I've heard in countless audio systems. As I indicated earlier, it is powerful and loud. Quantitative, not qualitative. It is all about the picture. Which is truly incredible as I've noted. Avatar is a work of art!

Another apples and oranges comparison. A audio system (especially a two channel system) is design to deliver its best output to one seat in room sizes a lot smaller than a movie theater. A movie theater sound system does not have that luxury.

The spatial characteristic you get from a home audio system is generated by reflections within the room. Home audio speakers can only acheive the spatial characteristics you describe by being located away from the walls. The more you push the speaker system towards the walls, the less spatial effect you will hear because you are turning a reflective pattern into a single event to the ears, as apposed to a multiple event with longer reflective paths to the ears. All depth from a two channel audio system comes from in front of you, and basically very little to none from the rear.

Theaterical speaker systems are built into baffles which prevent any rearward reflection event from happening. Hence the lack of rear depth. Depth is gained by pulling the signals "into" the room via the surround speakers.

Soundtracks, and music tracks are built totally different. Music is a event recorder, and soundtracks are made to match the the action on the screen. Music recordings are continual processes, and film soundtracks are sewn together from different events. Even if the quality of the systems were the same, you cannot compare a recording event to a manufactured recording. Audio is mixed one way, and film a completely different way.

It is not realistic or even logical to compare a home audio system to a multichannel theatrical sound system. What each has to accomplish within their environment is of opposite polarity, and almost everything about the listening experience is polar opposite as well. This is not a credible comparison, and it is illogical to frame it this way. Theatrical sound systems should be compared against other theatrical systems. A JBL theatrical system versus a Klipsch theatrical system is more credible because you are comparing systems that do the same thing in the same environment.

Kewl, dude! The multi-projector Cinerama of the 60s I saw (Grand Prix, Sound of Music, etc) has never matched the video resolution of the huge lateral 70mm format. It is a pity the sound is not even in the same class.

rw

If you really think that the audio on magnetic tape with a frequency response of 30-15khz, restricted dynamics in comparison to digital, complete with wow and flutter as the film goes through the projector, with a two way Altec based speaker system full of distortion is comparable to lossless digital sound with a frequency response of 20-20khz, no wow or flutter, coming through a 4 way custom speaker system with a fraction of the distortion is better sound, all I can say is nostalgia dominates your hearing capabilites more than reality.

Todays sound systems are lower in distortion, wider in frequency response, and have more controlled coverage patterns that require less acoustical tweaking than those old 2 way systems. Todays horns sound less "horn like" than the old systems. The bass response of a typical screen speaker is much lower than the old system (40hz versus 80hz). Amplifiers are lower in distortion than those older amps, and clarity of the overall system is far ahead today than back then.

[E-Stat]

You are comparing apples and oranges here. The purpose of a theatrical sound system is not to sound as good as a home based audio system, but to cover many seats with good sound as possible.

Understood. HP's Maggie based sound system is qualitatively the best HT audio I've heard.

Some theatrical systems are better at this than others. Sonic Associates systems don't use JBL drivers, their whole sound system was totally proprietary down to the drivers. The fake IMAX uses a JBL based theatrical system.

Does this link provide inaccurate information?

Fake IMAX= digital files at 2k resolution, a JBL based sound system, and smaller screenReal IMAX= 70mm film set on its side, 8 story screen, and the custom sound system built by Sonic Associates.

And I've attended quite a few standard IMAX (and OmniMax) theatres over the years. One of the most memorable non-3D titles was "The Dream is Alive" shot by Shuttle astronauts. The launch sequences are awesome at that power level and - I got bleary eyed when the shuttle opened the bay doors and revealed the beautiful majesty of our planet in such splendor rendered in the magnificent contrast afforded by the format. I now have that in Blu-Ray.

The spatial characteristic you get from a home audio system is generated by reflections within the room.

And by a far higher level of resolution and purity. The best home systems render like two and a quarter square Hassleblads while even the best theatre systems are more like entry level 35 mm rangefinders.

Home audio speakers can only acheive the spatial characteristics you describe by being located away from the walls.

Agreed.

All depth from a two channel audio system comes from in front of you, and basically very little to none from the rear.

Not so with all listening rooms. While the delay may not match that of a concert hall, I most certainly get some indirect radiation. Given that 95% of recorded music material is mixed down artifice, that provides a more natural result to me than gimmicky rear channel effects. OTOH, I will readily acknowledge the superiority of well done MC classical recordings. An EMM Labs transport/DAC through superb electronics, cabling and speakers does a fine job. Unfortunately, they are comparatively rare especially if what you prize is the performance - not limited to the quality of the recording. My classical repertoire consists of considerable pre-1980 content. I confess that I have zero interest in "live" rock MC recordings where the spatial characteristics consist solely of crowd noise added to what is fundamentally a monophonic wall of mud. The quality of the performance usually suffers in this environment as well. I don't own any video concerts of this type.

Theaterical speaker systems are built into baffles which prevent any rearward reflection event from happening. Hence the lack of rear depth. Depth is gained by pulling the signals "into" the room via the surround speakers.

Which I find quite realistic in an HT environment where sounds truly can emanate from behind you - unlike the overwhelming majority of musical performances.

It is not realistic or even logical to compare a home audio system to a multichannel theatrical sound system. What each has to accomplish within their environment is of opposite polarity, and almost everything about the listening experience is polar opposite as well. This is not a credible comparison, and it is illogical to frame it this way.

I'm not entirely agreeing with you. There is a sound of voices in space which my audio system can mimic - where theatrical systems fail miserably. Painted ships on a painted sky. They are utterly incapable of floating a voice in front of you as one finds in real life.

Theatrical sound systems should be compared against other theatrical systems.

From a commercial standpoint, that is a fair assessment. As for me, I've been ruined with the utter realism the best audio systems can render. Why not expect at some point a higher level of purity and coherence to make the sonic illusion more palpable?

... with a two way Altec based speaker system full of distortion is comparable to lossless digital sound with a frequency response of 20-20khz, no wow or flutter, coming through a 4 way custom speaker system with a fraction of the distortion is better sound, all I can say is nostalgia dominates your hearing capabilites more than reality.

I have no idea where this comment comes from. I find A5s and A7s to be intolerably honky and are severely bandwidth limited at both ends. They serve as no reference for me.

Todays sound systems are lower in distortion, wider in frequency response, and have more controlled coverage patterns that require less acoustical tweaking than those old 2 way systems.

Thank heaven for that! They still have quite a way to go.

Todays horns sound less "horn like" than the old systems. The bass response of a typical screen speaker is much lower than the old system (40hz versus 80hz). Amplifiers are lower in distortion than those older amps, and clarity of the overall system is far ahead today than back then.

I am in complete agreement with your assessment. It's just that I've been accustomed to far better for decades.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Understood. HP's Maggie based sound system is qualitatively the best HT audio I've heard.

You need to discover life beyond that elecrostatic or ribbon panel. I have heard planty of cones and domes that sound superior to ribbon or electro panels doing HT sound. Clarity is just one parimeter in acheiving good HT sound.

Does this link provide inaccurate information?

They are describing the dome based system which is different from the basic IMAX theater setup. I know, I used to work at the IMAX theater in California Science Center IMAX theater when I was in College at USC. I have an up close and personal relationship with that theaters A and B chain.

And I've attended quite a few standard IMAX (and OmniMax) theatres over the years. One of the most memorable non-3D titles was "The Dream is Alive" shot by Shuttle astronauts. The launch sequences are awesome at that power level and - I got bleary eyed when the shuttle opened the bay doors and revealed the beautiful majesty of our planet in such splendor rendered in the magnificent contrast afforded by the format. I now have that in Blu-Ray.

I also have that titles, good stuff.

And by a far higher level of resolution and purity. The best home systems render like two and a quarter square Hassleblads while even the best theatre systems are more like entry level 35 mm rangefinders.

You really cannot make this statement without actually listening to all of the theaterical sound system in the field. Have you heard the HPS-4000 system, or the Klipsch theatrical system? Or have you heard any of the custom solutions that are in theaters these days?

Not so with all listening rooms. While the delay may not match that of a concert hall, I most certainly get some indirect radiation.

That indirection radiation comes from front, side , and rear reflection from the room, and that is not natural to the recording itself. The recording itself does not contain a end users room reflections.

Given that 95% of recorded music material is mixed down artifice, that provides a more natural result to me than gimmicky rear channel effects.

Not all rear channel effects are gimmicky,and this comment shows a lack of experience in listening to the breath of MC recording out there. A great majority of the time those rear channels have reflective information derived directly from the hall, and not generated by the end users room reflections.

OTOH, I will readily acknowledge the superiority of well done MC classical recordings. An EMM Labs transport/DAC through superb electronics, cabling and speakers does a fine job.

You're are right, but it does not correct the spatial distortions of two channel sources.

Unfortunately, they are comparatively rare especially if what you prize is the performance - not limited to the quality of the recording. My classical repertoire consists of considerable pre-1980 content. I confess that I have zero interest in "live" rock MC recordings where the spatial characteristics consist solely of crowd noise added to what is fundamentally a monophonic wall of mud. The quality of the performance usually suffers in this environment as well. I don't own any video concerts of this type.

I gather that. Do you really believe that this kind of recording is the only MC(video or not) material out there? I hope not, because that would show a profound lack of experience with the broad range of MC recordings that have been released. This would not sound like any of Surround Records recordings, nor 2L classical recordings I have reviewed. Secondly, crowd noises are not added, they are recorded right from the venue, which makes it a natural part of the presentation itself. I would prefer it in the right place beside and behind me, rather than from behind the stage itself. Not one concert video I have reviewed has a wall of monophonic mud as you describe. Not even the acid, progressive, or hard rock I have reviewed. Just like with all recordings, there are some excellent top notch recordings, and there are some less than stellar ones. Either way, I have never heard what you describe.

Which I find quite realistic in an HT environment where sounds truly can emanate from behind you - unlike the overwhelming majority of musical performances.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the majority of musical performances do not contain a front loaded spatial perspective. In a concert hall, you have direct and indirect energy coming from all directions around the head. A two channel recording of the performance can only relay the natural frontal perspective, and not the other 300 degrees of natural information in the concert hall that hits the ears. The majority of musical performance cannot be defined by a weakness in a delivery system such a two channels only format.

I'm not entirely agreeing with you. There is a sound of voices in space which my audio system can mimic - where theatrical systems fail miserably. Painted ships on a painted sky. They are utterly incapable of floating a voice in front of you as one finds in real life.

Untrue, a completely untrue statement. Can your system float that same voice accurately in space if you sit off center? No it cannot, but it can with a MC system. Even my cheapest MC system can do what you describe with complete and total ease. Sorry, but a two channel system contains no magic properties except the ones the end user makes up in their collective heads. Anything a good two channel system can do, and good MC can do equally or better. Let us not cloud technical reality with nostalgic muses.

From a commercial standpoint, that is a fair assessment. As for me, I've been ruined with the utter realism the best audio systems can render. Why not expect at some point a higher level of purity and coherence to make the sonic illusion more palpable?

This statement essentially states that only a two channel system is capable of realism. This would be a disengenuous statement, and could not be further from the truth. A two channel system distorts a live concert, not provides it with more realism no matter what the quality of the system is. A two channel system cannot accurately reproduce a soundstage if a listener sits even a little off axis. The sound will be pulled to the nearest speaker in this case. This does not happen with a solid center channel. A two channel system has built in frequency response errors (a notch between 1-4khz) when trying to reproduce a phantom center no matter how good or expensive the speakers are. That notch does not happen with a hard center speaker. The illusion you speak of can only be realized from one point in space in a two channel system. A MC system does not have that kind of limitation.

I have no idea where this comment comes from. I find A5s and A7s to be intolerably honky and are severely bandwidth limited at both ends. They serve as no reference for me.

The multi-projector Cinerama of the 60s I saw (Grand Prix, Sound of Music, etc) has never matched the video resolution of the huge lateral 70mm format. It is a pity the sound is not even in the same class.

That last statement is where this comment came from. From a sound perspective, you cannot make the arguement that today sound systems, or even todays sound technology is not in the same class as the sound from these two movies shown in the Cinerama days. Todays sound is head and shoulders better than yesteryears in every way.

Thank heaven for that! They still have quite a way to go.

As does all speaker technology.

I am in complete agreement with your assessment. It's just that I've been accustomed to far better for decades.

rw

Far better is a matter of personal perspective. It means different things to different people. Far better home audio cannot be compared to far better film sound. You have no sources released to both that can offer a realistic comparison. There is no doubt the best home audio systems sound very good, but the best MC systems can sound as good or better than a simple two channel system even if the sources are identical(the same recording) optimized for both delivery system. Two channel proponents ignore a lot of sonic realities in support of their preferred delivery system.

In 1939(over 71 years ago) Bell Labs through extensive listening test concluded it takes at least three front speakers to accurately map a front soundstage(three was the minimum). Two channel only systems already fall short of that finding, no matter how good they are.

[E-Stat]

...doing HT sound.

Therein lies the difference in our preferences. I care more about musical qualities that the ability to replicate hovering helicopters or slamming doors.

They are describing the dome based system which is different from the basic IMAX theater setup.

Ok, they are used in the OmniMax flavor. Last time I checked they used IMAX projectors using the same film format and showed the same films.

You really cannot make this statement without actually listening to all of the theaterical sound system in the field. Have you heard the HPS-4000 system, or the Klipsch theatrical system? Or have you heard any of the custom solutions that are in theaters these days?

All I can say is that in hundreds of theaters from Los Angeles to New York, I haven't heard one that sounded worth a $hit since the 60s. Where are these magic sound systems to which you refer?

The recording itself does not contain a end users room reflections.

Why would anyone attempt to debate the obvious?

Not all rear channel effects are gimmicky,and this comment shows a lack of experience in listening to the breath of MC recording out there.

Read the next statement in my comments. I've heard many a fine classical MC recording.

I gather that. Do you really believe that this kind of recording is the only MC(video or not) material out there?

Please refresh my memory on which high quality popular MC audio recordings that are not recorded with *captured* audience noise. Perhaps they involve artists that do not appeal to me. Are there any musical scores by John Williams, James Horner, Hans Zimmer, or Nicholas Hooper available?

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the majority of musical performances do not contain a front loaded spatial perspective.

I will repeat this part we have discussed before. Hopefully, this time you will remember it. I HAVE NEVER ATTENDED ANY CONCERT WITH ARTISTS PLAYING BEHIND ME.

In a concert hall, you have direct and indirect energy coming from all directions around the head. A two channel recording of the performance can only relay the natural frontal perspective, and not the other 300 degrees of natural information in the concert hall that hits the ears.

Unless of course, you capture that ambience on the recording and have higher resolution gear than theatrical quality is capable of delivering.

he majority of musical performance cannot be defined by a weakness in a delivery system such a two channels only format.

This repetitious discussion is getting tiring. I base my choices on the musical library I have, not what is possible. I listen to my music, not the "medium". I will not dispense with 99% of recorded music history just to get gee whiz spatial effects. Feel free to do so yourself.

Untrue, a completely untrue statement. Can your system float that same voice accurately in space if you sit off center? No it cannot, but it can with a MC system...Even my cheapest MC system can do what you describe with complete and total ease.

Now you are showing your inexperience. I refer to a level of resolution that transcends theatrical quality gear. You can dial the otherwise flat and dimensionless image wherever you please and NOT succeed with the quality to which I refer.

Sorry, but a two channel system contains no magic properties except the ones the end user makes up in their collective heads. Anything a good two channel system can do, and good MC can do equally or better. Let us not cloud technical reality with nostalgic muses.

We have very different points of reference. I'm sure you believe the Oppo has state of the art performance. That you miss out on what is possible is a shame.

This statement essentially states that only a two channel system is capable of realism.

I really don't understand your fetish for how many channels are involved. I'm talking about the inherent purity and performance of the reproduction chain. It has nothing at all to do with the channel count.

That last statement is where this comment came from.

Perhaps I didn't state my point clearly. The audio comment was referring strictly to current theatrical gear and not comparing old systems. My Cinerama example was in reference to the video quality only. Audio quality has always suffered comparatively.

As does all speaker technology.

But using what is available today in a large venue would be cost prohibitive. Maybe in time theatrical systems will catch up with the resolution found with the best home or studio based systems. They all sound hard and unnatural to me.

Far better is a matter of personal perspective. It means different things to different people.

Indeed. It is apparent we do not hear the same things in recordings.

rw