Mid to High End Home Theater System

[drseid]

The Dalis Helicon 800s were a tad bit more musical than the Dyna's but did not have quite as much punch. I listened to the Euphonia MS5 as well, but IMO the Helicon 800s sounded much better. The MS5 were almost harsh sounding. Plus the Helicon's were $5000 cheaper. Gotta love that! Very good with movies as well.

Hah, so I have now found someone else who agrees with me on this point... I too found the Helicon800s better than the Euphonia MS5s when I heard them on the same day side by side. People have told me I am crazy, but to me there really was no comparison, and as you rightly point out, the Helicons are *much* less expensive.

---Dave

[PeruvianSkies]

For instance in a HT system the center channel is the most important speaker, the left front and right are really just "effects" speakers, but they are the major players in an audio system

Wrong again. You can't really determine which speaker is 'MOST' important because all speakers in a 5.1 system need to be calibrated in such a way that they are working together to give a full experience. It's really a bit misleading for you to say that the left and right are 'effects' speakers. The front 3 speakers (LCR) should perform together to create a front soundfield, all 3 are working together in unison together, which is like asking which leg on a tripod is the more important one?

[Quagmire]

Agree and disagree. Generally, when I've been asked about creating systems which do HT and Stereo "equally well", I explain to people that it isn't really possible. I've long said that the needs of HT and audio (Stereo) are different and as such, optimizing a setup for one purpose (format) means making compromises to the other. For instance, I agree that the front three speakers in an HT setup should ideally be creating a seamless soundfield, but I also understand your point about not relying on the front two speakers to "image" and create the entire musical soundstage -- front to back and side to side -- all on their own as you would expect out of speakers in a quality stereo rig.

What is optimal for stereo music listening -- from the dispersion pattern of the speakers, to the "liveness" of the room, to critical placement of speakers relative to room boundaries and the "sweet spot" -- is contrary to what is optimal for HT which is accomplished instead by processing, the use of mulitple speakers, the relative "deadness" of the room, etc... That isn't to say that there aren't "overlaps" between these two formats or audio presentations. There are. But when you begin talking about fine tuning a system for one purpose or the other, by definition this means moving out of the areas of overlap -- out of the areas of compromise -- and into the areas that bring about the very best performance for your particular purpose.

Usually, what I tell people is that it is possible to build a system which does extremely well with one format and "passable" with the other (subjective to the listener of course), or to build a system which is not optimized for either but does a pretty darn good job of both. With either arrangement, it is best to determine what is most important to the owner of the system and to bias the setup accordingly. Sometimes the best solution is to have completely separate systems for each format negating the need for such compromises altogether.

Even though rshad0000's stated goal is to have a system that does music and HT equally well (or at least better than his current system does), I would still encourage him to identify which is MOST important to him or for which purpose the system will be used MOST of the time. If he buys in accordance with these priorities then he won't be disappointed in the end.

Q

[pixelthis]

Wrong again. You can't really determine which speaker is 'MOST' important because all speakers in a 5.1 system need to be calibrated in such a way that they are working together to give a full experience. It's really a bit misleading for you to say that the left and right are 'effects' speakers. The front 3 speakers (LCR) should perform together to create a front soundfield, all 3 are working together in unison together, which is like asking which leg on a tripod is the more important one?

SO all of the home theater forums and home theater magazines and books I have read are wrong.
Sure you need a "seamless" soundfield in front, but the center channel is by far the most important, because thats where the DIALOG mostly comes from.
As much as 90% of your sound from a movie comes from the center channel, thats why they're so expensive.
My current b&w center cost 318 new, the 602s2 PAIR I use for fronts cost 540 together,
but dont beleive me , just go to any audio store where they know what they're talking about
(harder and harder to find I know) or just ask the guys at widescreen review, or any other stereo rag.
Its pretty much common knowledge, this is why a "phantom " center is so inadequate

[drseid]

SO all of the home theater forums and home theater magazines and books I have read are wrong.
Sure you need a "seamless" soundfield in front, but the center channel is by far the most important, because thats where the DIALOG mostly comes from.
As much as 90% of your sound from a movie comes from the center channel, thats why they're so expensive.
My current b&w center cost 318 new, the 602s2 PAIR I use for fronts cost 540 together,
but dont beleive me , just go to any audio store where they know what they're talking about
(harder and harder to find I know) or just ask the guys at widescreen review, or any other stereo rag.
Its pretty much common knowledge, this is why a "phantom " center is so inadequate

Nothing wrong with using a phantom center if you are sitting in the sweet spot, IMO... The center channel speaker's purpose pretty much is to anchor the dialog and other sound to the screen (center) location so others in the room who are not be in the sweet spot can get decent sound too (as opposed to the speech sounding like it was coming out of the speaker they are closer to if a phantom center is used and they are not in the sweet spot).

While I have a center channel speaker, if I am watching a movie alone in my primary listening chair, I can get better sound using a phantom center, as my center channel speaker has to sit below my TV on a shelf on its side, and that is obviously not optimal. By using the phantom center mode with my mains, I get much clearer dialog and sound in general.

As for center channel speakers and price... I don't see any reason why they are "better" than any left or right main speaker if those speakers are of good quality. Quite frankly, having three identical speakers up front could sound wonderful, but it is very difficult for most people to afford or fit into their room requirements (no way could I do it with mine, to my chagrin). My center channel speaker is just the top part of my L/R mains for reference (no bass module unit -- see my avatar minus the bottom half and you get the idea), but placed on its side with a magnetically shielded version of the same exact drivers. Nothing special about it, really (and its price is the same as one of the top halves of my mains -- not too surprisingly). Personally I would not take the word of just any salesman at those stores. There are many who know plenty about good audio and the like, then there are many who just want a good upsell. :-)

---Dave

[PeruvianSkies]

SO all of the home theater forums and home theater magazines and books I have read are wrong.

Quite possible. Don't take their word for absolute truth.

Sure you need a "seamless" soundfield in front, but the center channel is by far the most important, because thats where the DIALOG mostly comes fro

m.

That's DIALOGUE. It might be where the dialogue comes from, but let me see you sit there and watch a whole movie without left and right and only getting center channel sound and then tell me just how important everything else is.

As much as 90% of your sound from a movie comes from the center channel, thats why they're so expensive.

The center channel might have sound coming through 90% of the time, but the left and right probably do as well, do you have any statistics showing the activity level of each speaker? So left and right speakers are not expensive then, only center channels??????

My current b&w center cost 318 new, the 602s2 PAIR I use for fronts cost 540 together,
but dont beleive me , just go to any audio store where they know what they're talking abou

I don't believe you and I don't need an audio store to help me make up my mind on the issue.

(harder and harder to find I know) or just ask the guys at widescreen review, or any other stereo rag.
Its pretty much common knowledge, this is why a "phantom " center is so inadequate

Oooh yeah cause Widescreen Review wrote the law on Home Theater....please. This is also the same rag that gives 5+ for sound and 5 for picture on DVD's and act like the picture could NEVER be beat, then HD-DVD and Blu-ray come along....what are they going to give them a 5++++++ for picture and sound. That rag is a hype magazine trying to pump up sales just like the rest of them!

So much for common knowledge.

[SlumpBuster]

While I have a center channel speaker, if I am watching a movie alone in my primary listening chair, I can get better sound using a phantom center, as my center channel speaker has to sit below my TV on a shelf on its side, and that is obviously not optimal. By using the phantom center mode with my mains, I get much clearer dialog and sound in general.

Not to pile on, but... Me too. That was even more true before I had a DD receiver. Certainly with good old Dolby Pro Logic I would use the Phantom if it was just me watching.

The analysis of Center being most important held more value in the pre digital days. The idea of 90% of sound coming from the center filled all the publications and catalogs back in the 90s. But with five full range and discrete channels, the sound mixer could mix all the "center dialog" to the back right if he wanted to. Predigital everyone said DLP was the bomb, I thought it sounded like garbage. But, I'll never forget the first 5.1 mix I listened to at home (Jet Li's Hero - I know I was late to the DTS/DD table), and I was hooked. In part because that outdated "Center is most important" mentality was obsolete and even the surrounds were shaking the walls.

[Mr Peabody]

Drseid, are you using analog or digital connections from your HD disc players? If using digital on either, did you detect any difference in sound on standard DVD?

[drseid]

Drseid, are you using analog or digital connections from your HD disc players? If using digital on either, did you detect any difference in sound on standard DVD?

I am using analog on my HD DVD player, and digital on the BD player. In the case of the HD DVD, I did (and do) notice a better sound, but really only when watching HD DVDs with DD TrueHD soundtracks. If it is a regular soundtrack (regular DD or DTS) I will frequently switch back to digital for easier bass management. This applies to all standard DVDs, obviously.

I will be testing the analog outs on the BD player soon when using BD discs, now that Sony has also upgraded it to be able to play DD TrueHD... Bass management on both players is horrible through the analog outs though. I guess that is one of the downsides to 1st gen players... On standard DVDs, I think there are probably more disadvantages than advantages to using the analog outs. In my case, my Cary has a very good DD and DTS decoder anyway.

---Dave

[Mr Peabody]

I just wondered what your experience has been. So far, I've only used digital out from my Blu-ray player. The sound quality was noticeably better on BR discs and I thought even better on SD but as some one pointed out the SD audio would still be compressed and I shouldn't hear a difference. So maybe I was so impressed by the BR that I just thought I did.