Why spend big bucks for HT? (1 Viewer)

[Marty Neudel]

>The soundtracks are not that well recorded<

Yogi,

my experience is different from yours. A number of soundtracks rival good cd's. Try listening to the new release of High Society on a high quality sound system and I think you'll hear what I mean.

>you really cant tell one amp from another (barring headroom, available power at clipping etc) in purely multichannel HT.<

Headroom, available power at clipping etc. are major factors, and, indeed, contribute to the fact that many people on this forum DO claim to hear a difference

>Issues of soundstaging, imaging, resolution etc are not that relavant in HT anyways IMO although warmth and brightness does matter in HT.<

Although you stated "IMO", I feel it's relevant to the question asked by this thread to note that many people find soundstaging, imaging, resolution etc. to be important to their home theatre experience.

Marty

 

[Dave Milne]

many people find soundstaging, imaging, resolution etc. to be important to their home theatre experience.

Absolutely. I've spent way more on sound equipment for the theater than video (and I've got a pretty decent CRT FP, scaler and motorized screen), because sound is that important.

 

[Miguel Stanic]

SOUND, SOUND, SOUND

I've sank 80% of my HT into sound.

I do like a good picture, as well, so I am happy with my current widescreen RPTV.

Here's my order of what components fascinate me most when it comes to HT...what's yours:

PREAMPS
RECEIVERS
AMPLIFIERS
SPEAKERS
SUBWOOFERS
DVD PLAYERS
TELEVISIONS
DSS RECEIVERS
CABLES & ACCESSORIES

I'm always on the hunt for the latest and greatest PREAMPS and RECEIVERS. I find them to be the most interesting part of the HT puzzle.

 

[Kevin. W]

Ed,

I think what it boils down to is wanting what others have. Once you have that feeling then the addiction has taken hold. For me its always what can I afford now not later that sways my buying decision. This can be a good or a bad thing, depending on what I buy. I first started off my HT with a Yamaha receiver and Paradigm Mini Monitor speakers/CC-350/PS1000. Down the road I have exchanged the Yama for a Denon, added a Rotel 6x60 AMP and finally replaced my Denon with Marantz AV560U pre/pro to bring me into the world of seperates. Did I notice a difference at each step? Yes. Yamaha was bright, Denon warm(less treble). Adding the Rotel opened up the soundstage and improved clarity that the receivers just didn't have even thought the Rotel is 6x60 and the receivers were 5x75-85w. I'm happy know with what I have and see no need to change it, though if I had the $$$ I would.

Kevin

 

[Kevin_R_H]

Well, Ed, I guess you're talking about some of my posts. Look, I have no qualms about someone sinking $4,000 into a multi-channel amp and another $4,000 into a HT pre/pro. That is, as long as that person is not interested in 2-channel musical enjoyment at all.

What I've been preaching here pertains solely for those of us who enjoy music as well as movies, and who don't have an unlimited budget to spend on their passion.

And for those folks, yes, I believe that spending heavy cash on a HT pre/pro and/or a 5.1 amp is not a wise way to divvie up your funds.

In my HT system, my stereo amplification is over 20 times more expensive than my HT amp. My "Main Speakers" cost 15 times more than my "Surround Speakers". Needless to say, I feel strongly that this allocation of funds yields a better HT experience than a "balanced system".

But while the difference between these two philosophies is admittedly pretty small when watching DVDs, the real payoff comes when listening to music. As I've been preaching, reproducing "audiophile level" musical passages is a very challenging, complex task. However, reproducing Center Channel dialog, and Surround Sound effects/noises is not very challenging at all.

If 2-channel music figures into your system enjoyment at all, throw your money at it. By virtue of its excellence, your DVD experience will be lifted as well.

Kevin

 

[RichardHOS]

And where does that leave you with higher quality music formats (i.e., multichannel music)?

You wind up with a great stereo system, and mediocre multichannel music system. I guess that's fine... so long as you never plan on using the superior format, or plan to upgrade the rest of your components as well when you make that move.

Don't get me wrong... I agree with your approach Kevin, and I'm doing essentially the same. More expensive L/R speakers and amps. Just poining out that it isn't necessarily "ideal," just a good compromise for a given budget, so long as you don't skimp too much on surround channel speakers/amps.

 

[Kevin_R_H]

Great question, Richard!! And I have 3 responses.

It's true, the ability of my system to play "audiophile level" multi-channel music is non-existent. It would sound pretty bad.

But first of all, remember, I didn't have unlimited funds. And it would have cost A LOT more money to sonically match Center/Surrounds/Subs to my Mains. My monoblocks alone cost $5,900 pr, so three more of those would have been an extra $8,850. My Main Speakers were even more expensive, so trying to find Centers/Surrounds to match - well, I'm getting dizzy just thinking about it.

Secondly, I'm one of those who is not real enamored with the "listening perspective" of multi-channel music. With my auditions, I'm always "wowed" for 15 - 20 minutes. But then, I find myself less and less interested. For me, the listening position is just "wrong". While high quality 2-channel playback allows me to imagine I'm in the front row, multi-channel screws up this "illusion". All these images break down.

Most importantly, Richard, many of these "higher quality music formats" DO ALLOW stereo playback of this enhanced signal. They are not "multi-channel only". And, you should hear these on my system - you wouldn't be disappointed.

Kevin

 

[Craig_Kg]

Plus a lot of multichannel recordings are poor which is not surprising considering it's in its infancy. They have enough problems getting 2ch mixes right let alone 5.1

 

[EdNichols]

I think Keven has hit on the head what my original intent was for this thread. Music (2 channel)seems worthwhile to spend more money on to get those tiny little nuances that you probably wouldn't hear with cheap equipment. And yes, there are very nicely recorded sound tracks on DVD, however, the music is usually in the background of some dialog or some "shoot em up" or something else that covers up the music. So, like I said, other than more wattage, why bother with big bucks (other than louder sound and bragging rights) if you preference is mostly HT? Sure it's your money but when do you reach the point of diminishing returns when it comes to HT? For music, I think once you reach a good quality separate (Rotel, Anthem, etc., )spending anymore for high end (Krell, Mark Levinson etc,) is diminishing return. IMHO for HT I think the returns occur at a lower level, for example, going from a high end receiver to separates. Whatcha think?

 

[RichardHOS]

Well, for my preferenes, I want separates for the two channel aspect, so why not use a pre/pro instead of a receiver? Also, I do want quality surrounds for multichannel music (hoping some format eventually becomes widely used ). A valid reason for going with separates for the whole HT is flexibility - if you want to upgrade to a new surround format, you can change pre/pro and still keep the quality amplification already in place. Eventually, that will probably work out to be a better investment.

 

[Jeff Kohn]

think Keven has hit on the head what my original intent was for this thread. Music (2 channel)seems worthwhile to spend more money on to get those tiny little nuances that you probably wouldn't hear with cheap equipment. And yes, there are very nicely recorded sound tracks on DVD, however, the music is usually in the background of some dialog or some "shoot em up" or something else that covers up the music. So, like I said, other than more wattage, why bother with big bucks (other than louder sound and bragging rights) if you preference is mostly HT? Sure it's your money but when do you reach the point of diminishing returns when it comes to HT? For music, I think once you reach a good quality separate (Rotel, Anthem, etc., )spending anymore for high end (Krell, Mark Levinson etc,) is diminishing return. IMHO for HT I think the returns occur at a lower level, for example, going from a high end receiver to separates. Whatcha think?

I think your fundamental assumption that quality is important for stereo music and not home theater is flawed. Maybe that's how you feel, but it's not a universal truth. I want accurate sound whether I'm listening to music or watching a movie. And like many people, I don't have the space or the budget for separate 2-channel and HT systems, so my goal is to build a system that works well for both (as well as multi-channel music).

 

[MannyE]

Hmmmmmmmm

Here's my 2 cents.

I'll just talk about real world experience.

I had a Pioneer VSX-D906S receiver which back then only had DD and was terrible at stereo reproduction. I had Radio Shack Minimus 7s all around, and no sub.

Since I think the best money spent is money spent on speakers, I upgraded to Definitive Technologies BP2002 powered towers, a CLR 2000, and BPX Bi-polars for the rear.

These speakers excell at movie sound. They made a HUGE difference. But then I began to notice that on sountracks like T2, if I really cranked up the volume, certain parts were so shrill that everyone in the room would cringe. Ditto Star Wars LDs and from what I can remember..Outbreak had some stuff that would peel paint with this combo. The most I can figure is that the speakers were able to "show up" the weaknesses of the Pioneer. I also noticed that 2-channel SUCKED when using the Pioneer.

After a few months of this, I purchsed an Outlaw 750 5 channel amp, and used the pre-outs on the Pioneer...things got better..not much better, but the extra power really helped the 2002s sing. Stereo improved but only marginally..imaging and blahblahblah...not all that good still.

Then I reached deep and scrapped the Pioneer in favor of a B&K Ref 30. I will now strongly disagree that it is not neccesary to spend money on seperates for HT because the difference was AMAZING..not subtle..no "golden ears" needed.

I'm only talking about movie sound here, not stereo. The B&K is no slouch at 2 channel and I even prefer the HT for listening to things like Rock, Pop, or Electronic music..I could even live with this system for jazz and acoustic and indeed I did for several months while I put my dedicated analog system together.. (which, by the way, sounds better at 2 channel than my HT (on acoustic music and with certain limitations), but cost a lot less).

Bottom line is that seperates and better quality components do make a big difference in my experience.

So there.

 

[Albert Damico]

I don't know. I recently upgraded from a receiver (Yamaha RX-V2095) to seperates and the difference in HT sound is huge. Now, to be fair, I also upgraded from my Infinity Overture 2 speakers to three Dunlavy speakers across the front, so maybe some of the difference is in the speakers. But I love movies as much as I love music, and as I have posted before, I have been a musician since 1969 with a rather extensive collection of guitars, and other musical insturments and amps. This is to illustrate that when I say I love movies as much as music that this is pretty intense love affair. So spending the money on seperates to get a better movie experience was pretty easy. I might also add, though, that I drive a Lexus SC-430 and my wife a Mitsubishi 3000GT SL. Sure we could drive a couple of Fords or Chevys (not knocking either) I mean how fast can you really drive anyhow? So I guess what I am saying is that a part of buying expensive toys, even though the return my "seem" marginal to some, also is a lot about ego too.

 

[Kevin_R_H]

Jeff,

I realize you are responding to Ed's post, and not mine. But since it's indirectly relative to my crazy way of putting a system together, I would like to respond.

Just to clarify, my stereo rig and my Home Theater ARE integrated. Like you, I had no desire for two stand-alone systems. In fact, that is the foundation of my whole argument. "If I throw the lion's share of my available cash at stereo playback, my associated Home Theater will reap the benefits as well".

While music is my passion, watching DVDs is also very important. I have a pretty nice High-Def Front Projector, and a matching Progressive Scan DVD Player. My family and I really enjoy watching movies together.

But I feel there is a different mind-set between "critical music listening" vs "critical DVD watching".
When listening to music, that is all that is going on. My mind is (usually) completely focused on this solitary task. Minor improvements can be very apparent to a critical ear. And a system's inability to reproduce certain passages can be pretty frustrating.
However, when watching a movie, I'm mostly interested in the movie - its plotline, the suspense, the humor, the thrills, etc.
And if the effects/noises/ambiance coming from the Surround Speakers is not 100% true to the source, I don't really mind. After all, that's not the central task at hand - watching and enjoying the movie is. As I've stated before, if my Surrounds make a Honda Lawn Mower sound like a Lawn-Boy, who cares? My mind is just processing the fact that "there's someone mowing the grass behind me".
As long as the amp/receiver powering the Center/Surrounds is compatible with the associated speakers, and they can play to a resonably loud level without distortion/clipping, you are in business.
And this can be had for significantly less cash than most realize, particularly when your stereo power amp(s) is driving the main speakers - relieving your HT amp/receiver from this burden.

So while I'm not saying that quality is unimportant to the audio portion of DVDs, it's true I am saying that "when integrated with a high-quality 2-channel system, there is no reason to throw a lot of money at HT pre/pro, HT multi-channel amp, Surround Speakers, and Center Speakers". I believe you are over-spending.

(disclaimer: for those who don't care about 2-channel music, feel free to ignore my philosophy. by all means, "balance" your system out.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++

Manny,

Don't forget the entire premise of my philosophy. I never claimed that upgrading your HT amplification/speakers to better quality HT amplification/speakers will reap no benefit. I'm certain that a $3,000 pre/pro and a $3,000 multi-channel power amp will outperform a $1,200 receiver.

What I've been proposing is that if you have a fixed budget (let's say $15,000) to spend on an entire system, and that 2-channel music will play some role in this "integrated system", then I believe that an "unbalanced distribution of funds" can yield an overall more enjoyable system than a "balanced system".
Allow the stereo portion of your rig to be the foundation of your Home Theater. For watching DVDs, the difference may be slight. But when your integrated system is being used in stereo-only mode, the difference becomes clear.

Kevin

 

[MannyE]

So I guess what I am saying is that a part of buying expensive toys, even though the return my "seem" marginal to some, also is a lot about ego too.

Well yeah...that too

How big is your screen? Mine's bigger! HAHAHAHAHAHA

But I still find that most of the time those of us who really really love movies and even television, end up alone in the dark. My HT experience is more enjoyable now that the sound is as good (better, actually) as the image. The recent drop in high-quality projector prices means many of us will soon have a big image to go with that big sound as well. For a true enthusiast, the pleasure isn't in having the biggest and baddest, just whatever will make the experience better...

And blow away your friends when they come over

 

[Albert Damico]

MannyE:

I agree. Although ego is involved, in the end, I bought my HT and music gear because I thought that they would give the best experience. When I built my HT room. I wasn't trying to recreate the movie theater experience, I wanted the movie exerience to seem as if it was really happening right in front of me. and as I was watching it as it really happened, there I would be, protected, sitting in the middle. I didn't want it to just look and sound as if the action was really taking place, I wanted it to be real! I have a Mitusbishi WS-65907 RPTV but I lust for a front projector. My room size just doesn't permit, but I am thinking of pushing the room out about 10' next year to give room.

 

[MannyE]

Kevin,

You snuck that one in there while I was writing (a good use of my time here at work)...

I whole-heartedly agree with you. but there is something interesting that happens when you try to do what you are proposing. Let me preface by saying that for 99% of us, music and movies in the same room with the same equipment is not an option, but really the only way to do it.

That said, I found that the requirements for each type of experience are so different that we eventually get to a point where the seperate 2-channel rig becomes inevitable.

I have worked in television for 15 years, and I am an obessive videophile/audiophile when it comes to video production values, and to me(...although I am not familiar enough with the sounds of lawn tractors LOL ...so I will use something I would notice...if a 69 Roadrunner drives behind me and sounds like an 87 Mustang GT...) the accurate reproduction of these effects is just as important as hearing the body of the violin resonate...

So while I do agree with you in the practical sense, in the money is no object theoretical world, I would have to disagree because I would put the same amount of money and effort into both systems..in fact, probably more into the HT just because of the sheer amount of equipment.

Botton line is that I really do feel that accurate reproduction is just as important if it is to tell the difference between a 9mm and a 357 magnum or steel or nylon guitar strings.

And by the way...if you have ever seen firsthand the trouble that studios go through to score films or reproduce SFX, you may find yourself in agreement with me Even in stupid television, we really go the extra mile to bring exceptional audio into the final product (sometimes )

 

[EdNichols]

When listening to music, that is all that is going on. My mind is (usually) completely focused on this solitary task. Minor improvements can be very apparent to a critical ear. And a system's inability to reproduce certain passages can be pretty frustrating.

My sentiments exactly. When, if ever, have you listened to a DVD with your eyes closed? When listening critically to music you want to locate, for example, where in the sound stage a person is when they are playing that flute during the recording or if that guitar is a six string and so forth. With HT and movies your critical listening consists of "wow" did you hear what sounded like a plane buzing around our head or "cool" I just rattled the pictures off the wall when the plane crashed. With DVD's you use your eyes and your ears, with music your focus is with just one sense, therefore you tend to pick up more critically the sound coming from the system.

 

[Craig_Kg]

How about the fact that almost all movie soundtracks are lossy encoded?

 

[LaMarcus]

Well, my input is that I've found out that going separates makes a huge difference in HT. But it doesn't do jack!, if you don't have the speakers to match.

We had a Ohio meet at a members house and he and Paradigm all around, a Carver amp, and a old Pioneer Elite receiver. His sound was so awesome that he only had a 5.1 setup, but we all keep turning around because it sounded as if he had a 6.1 or 7.1 setup. His surround sound was that good, you could hear the effects move from left to right as though there was a speaker in between them.

So from that day on I was convinced, because I was one that didn't believe in separate amps, but boy was I wrong. But I know it would not have sounded that good if he didn't have the speakers to match the quality of the amp.