Forgo Surround Sound?

[StephenM]

So I guess I'm at a sort of crossroads at the moment, and I could go a few ways.

I've got the makings of a very strong 2.1 system at the moment and debating with myself whether I should bother with surround sound or perhaps stay with the 2 channel system but start looking at a separate pre-amp and amplifier. I wonder how many other people have gone that route, hence the post.

Personally I couldn't care less to hear anything behind me while watching movies. I like impact, clear dialogue, and imaging/sounstaging. None of those things seem to require 5.1 or 7.1...

[wuzzzer]

I had a two channel setup for a while before I went to surround. It performed very well for movies. I slowly added surround-sound components into my setup until I have what I have today. Its taken about 4 years to complete my setup listed below. Patience and watching eBay/craigslist has helped me find some incredible deals.

There's been a couple times when I've debated selling my Forte surrounds to help purchase other components that I'd be interested in but I have put myself on a buying/selling moratorium until the end of 2011. Plus, having a 7 channel amp and awesome home theater pre-amp only running 2 speakers is kind of dumb.

[Mallette]

Accurate imaging is not possible in stereo. How can applause coming from the same stage as the performers make any sense except with a LOT of getting used to it? Can the rear division of a pipe organ ever be right totally mixed in with the front? Infinite examples available on why stereo can never deliver a realistic image.

However, the very poor engineering of most all multi-channel recordings. I have done several tests using SoundCube and Virtual Presence techniques that actually produce a realistically imaged soundfield, so I know it can be done. Why it ISN'T done is simply a mystery.

So, stick with dual channel mono for the moment, as I've found only two or three SACD's and DVD-A's with anything like realistic surround fields, along with a handful of movies.

Dave

[USNRET]

Personally I couldn't care less to hear anything behind me while watching movies. I like impact, clear dialogue, and imaging/sounstaging. None of those things seem to require 5.1 or 7.1...

You have answered you own question BUT in my opinion the electronics and speakers for HT and 2 channel are two very different animals. Also, I really like the behind sound WHEN it is meant to be there (movies: aircraft flyover, etc) music IMHO should never be behind you, crowd noise ok, music no.

I chose to go with separate setups as the pre/pro or AVR couldn't cut it in two channel and the HT needs power and speed not found in tube amps. I tried NAD, Denon, Carver, Sony and McIntosh as HT + Stereo

Get the one you listen to most first.

[StephenM]

You have answered you own question BUT in my opinion

Sort of.

The problem I have is that I know that at least for movies, surround sound should be superior on all of those counts, regardless of how happy I am now.

A dedicated center channel should certainly improve speech intelligibility, dynamic compression is an issue for downmixing Dolby 5.1 tracks to 2.0, and five speakers should make a much more interesting stage than two. On the other hand, three more speakers that match well with the RF-5s cost money and I'm a tightwad... Hence the internal debate.

[StephenM]

Accurate imaging is not possible in stereo... Infinite examples available on why stereo can never deliver a realistic image.

A minor nitpick: it isn't that stereo can never deliver realistic imaging, it is just that situations exist where realistic imaging is not possible.

However, all of those situations depend on one's point of reference. Be it in a movie or listening to a concert, in stereo you are always an outside observer, somewhat removed from the action. With surround sound you are in the middle of the action. IOW, you can feel like you're caught in a crossfire watching your favorite action flick, or you can listen to it unfold in front of you. Personally, I'm not that interested in the "middle of the action" feeling, or at least, that isn't why I'd go with surround sound.

[Mallette]

Personally, I'm not that interested in the "middle of the action" feeling, or at least, that isn't why I'd go with surround sound.

Me neither. That's why I dispise audience noise and applause coming from the front. Many learn to live with it. But it's definitely unnatural and a learned response as human ears and audio location wiring simply isn't designed for front only sound. Sure, a string quartet can be OK, or a small jazz ensemble. However, even those lose the building they were recorded in...which is often a major part of the experience.

Don't get me wrong...most surround engineering is so poorly done 99% of my listening is in 2, or at best, some derived ambience. However, that doesn't make me somehow believe you can remove 3/4 of audio stimulus and leave anything like "reality." It's learned. Actually, I suspect that may be part of the decline in 2 channel listeners and audio-only listeners in general. We are dieing off and others are simply never learning to appreciate it.

Dave

PS-I have the same opinion of HD TV. Even at 1080P at 8 feet across it is closer to VHS than anything like reality. Again, I LIKE it, but it is flat as a pancake. Won't fool my cat.

[psg]

Personally I couldn't care less to hear anything behind me while watching movies. I like impact, clear dialogue, and imaging/sounstaging. None of those things seem to require 5.1 or 7.1...

Hi Steve,

I guess the benefit of surround speakers depends on the type of movies you watch (action or not?) and whether the room can accomodate them. I'd rather have no surrounds than a speaker 6 inches from my ear. The center speaker is only really useful for off-axis seating and to avoid the DRC issue you alluded to. I wonder if that problem still exists with the Blu Ray codecs? I have never read anything about it and haven't tested either. If you get a center, then it's crucial that it be as good as the mains of course, since that is the speaker you will hear most in movies.

I think the .1 is the first thing to get for HT. A good sub makes a big difference; I wish I hadn't missed the Danley DTS-10 kit. Personally, I love the imersive feeling of good surround, but I'd live without it before losing the sub.

[muel]

Personally, I'm not that interested in the "middle of the action" feeling, or at least, that isn't why I'd go with surround sound.

... I dispise audience noise and applause coming from the front. Many learn to live with it. But it's definitely unnatural and a learned response as human ears and audio location wiring simply isn't designed for front only sound.

You must get good seats at concerts! In my experience of lousy seats the applause is almost all coming from the front. [:'(]

[StephenM]

I guess the benefit of surround speakers depends on the type of movies you watch (action or not?)

Mostly not. Of the movies I watch, about 50% are chick flicks with the wife, and the bulk of the rest are in the comedy genre.

and whether the room can accomodate them.

Not at the moment easily, but the room is slated to be remodelled next summer. I'll wire it for surround because the option is always nice, but I doubt I'll be rushing to implement anything.

I wonder if that problem still exists with the Blu Ray codecs? I have never read anything about it and haven't tested either.

I can't imagine why it wouldn't be. There is sound logic behind the decision to implement DRC, and nothing has really changed in that regard.

I think the .1 is the first thing to get for HT. A good sub makes a big difference; I wish I hadn't missed the Danley DTS-10 kit. Personally, I love the imersive feeling of good surround, but I'd live without it before losing the sub.

Well that part I do have, and I agree. A dedicated subwoofer is for all practical purposes a must for movies.

[psg]

If action films are not your genre, then the lack of surround isn't a huge issue and the inherent application of DRC probably doesn't hurt too much either.

It's certainly a limitation to be aware of, and you are!

[Mallette]

Personally I couldn't care less to hear anything behind me while watching movies. I like impact, clear dialogue, and imaging/sounstaging. None of those things seem to require 5.1 or 7.1...

Sorry. Didn't catch this part. I was thinking music.

Have to relate my conversion to surround for movies. "Gods and Generals" Sound had been awesome all along, but as the charge developed on the long wall and a camera was moving along with the Southern troops facing the Union line, there was a roar from the rear and the sound of shells clearly whistling over all our heads. Then all hell broke lose as they exploded behind the enemy lines. While a "trained" view would figure this out with front only sound, I rather like the real thing.

Movie mixers seem to have a much better command of the raison d'tre of surround than music engineers.

Dave

[Groomlakearea51]

No matter how hard I tried, nothing can equal a very good horizontal oriented line array with multiple amps, each driving it's own pair, and using gain/volume to control the sound stage depth, width, presence, etc. It's a..... heresy! I know, but those who have heard the application in the Wall of Voodoo can attest that the concept and practice works.

I like "surround", per se... but it's an artificial construct for most folks who do not want to fool with multiple "anything", and have rooms that, from a good stereo viewpoint, have major problems with reflections, etc. Its a compromise. Look at it this way, you are watching a screen or, for all intents and purposes, looking through a "window". Short of a THX system with massive surround speakers in the theater to compensate for the sheer size, the apparent sound we are listening to comes from the "window".

Just a thought.

[H]

[tromprof]

I used to have a surround setup with a Sony ES series receiver powering an RC-7 front, Fortes for LR, and in wall speakers for the back channels. Though sometimes interesting in was rare to come across a movie that did a lot with the extra speakers. By and large 90% came out of the front RC-7. I now have a pair of La Scalas with a simple tube amp doing home theater duty and enjoy it more. Seems as though a really good HT setup, as always, requires serious cash for a lot of good equipment,, and then will only really sound different on a few movies.

[Mallette]

Just a thought.

As I've said, there is certain material that can get pretty real with a 2 channel system, but even that is a "learned" thing. It should be obvious that human hearing expects 360 degrees of soundfield for proper imaging.

However, few engineers have used anything like my "Virtual Presence" methodology. While I have experienced quite a few movies with good surround, such as the previously mentioned "Gods and Generals," but I have precisely ONE SACD that meets my standards for proper imaging. It's "Music for Compline" on Harmonia Mundi. What's in the rear? NOTHING. By "nothing," I mean that one hears the space and returns from the marvelous building the recording was made in. The "listening room" disappears almost entirely. Flip to stereo and the space disappears and you are left with an extraordinary stereo recording, but the only sense of space remaining is that which the trained ear infers from the information coming from the front.

Again, this isn't a debate about philosophy, it's about science and facts. A great mono recording can be uplifting, a great stereo recording adds a lot, but neither of these can possibly recreate a space-time acoustic event anymore than the highest resolution HD TV picture can fool my cat.

Dave