Is surround sound really necessary? (1 Viewer)

[Reginald Trent]

Is High Definition necessary? What about color? Do we need stereo? Mono projects audio good enough right?

Bottom line as was stated previously, few things are necessary unless.......you are trying to reproduce 5.1/multi-channel audio as intended by the DVD's maker.

 

[Tom Brennan]

Rodney--You said "I simply cant imagine watching a movie without surround sound."

Really? Then you're gonna miss lots of good movies.

 

[Tom Brennan]

Reginald--Actually I wonder if stereo is needed or if it was possibly a wrong fork in the road. I've heard and used some really good mono systems. Mono can certainly project all the musical information and does it in a relaxing manner that focuses one's attention on the music rather than the sound.
www.chicagohornspeakerclub.org

 

[Wayne Ernst]

Not really. Pro Logic II (Cinema mode or Music mode) makes this option very possible.

 

[Tom Brennan]

Wayne--Well if you want to watch White Heat and Double Indemnity with some kind of phony surround sound have a field day. Now what do you do with Intolerance, Broken Blossoms and Sunrise?

 

[Wayne Ernst]

Actually, the discussion was about surround sound - not necessarily "phony" sounding surround sound. I just thought I'd chime in and point out that there were options (with Pro Logic II.) Granted, not all options will be viable for everyone - however, they do exist. If you can't use Pro Logic II to supply sound to those movies, how can you use a 16:9 screen to watch them - doesn't that also possibly mess with the intended format? I'm assuming that these movies were not released as 16:9 movies, but possibly 4:3. No?

 

[Scott Oliver]

I believe surround sound to be way over-rated. I think it can be great if done properly like that million dollar system with dedicated room is probably pretty good .
But I have heard way to many systems where the sound becomes more of a distraction than anything.
It is hard enough to get two channels right.
Personally I use to own a 5 speaker, three subwoofer system fed from a Theta Casa Nova and good solid-state. Now I have the Theta with a great tube amp and two great speakers (purchased from sale of above system), and it absolutely is more real, more enveloping, more enjoyable than ever before.

 

[Jose G]

Since this is for your wife, tell her this:
Is it really necessary? Of course not. But so much of what we enjoy isn't really necessary. We choose to extend ourselves a bit and take chances in order to experience new things and enjoy some old things in new ways- like experiencing a dvd with surround sound in our own home . These extra steps (and extra expenses) are tolerated in hope of enriching our lives, as they promise to add a new dimension (rear surround) of comfort and joy to our every day. In the best of circumstances, friends and family will experience the HT together and a greater social bond will result- memories of those times when your subwoofer scared the pants off of one of you will come up in future conversations and, hopefully, a smile and laughter will follow. In the worst case scenerio, you will isolate yourself from others, get stuck watching many a bad dvd, and become so depressed that the best HT system would not matter, but then again that’s what happens with regular t.v., so chances are that going the way of HT will only improve your chances toward a happier existence. This is just my opinion: HT is the way to go

 

[Jim Williams]

Thank you for all of your replies. I especially like taking her to a high end shop and just have her listen to surround done right.

She bought my DVD player for my birthday because I asked for one. She couldn't see the need for it since we had two VCRs. That was until I bought the DVD "Dirty Dancing". After we watched that movie she said to me "you know, this DVD player is a pretty good investment". Go figure.

 

[Reginald Trent]

Quote:
She bought my DVD player for my birthday because I asked for one. She couldn't see the need for it since we had two VCRs.
---------------------
Just tell her the following. You know honey the DVD player wasn't necessary but look at how much enjoyment we have got from it.

 

[Doug_B]

I enjoy a good 5.1 implementation on my system, but I definitely have more movies that pre-date this. For most of these movies, applying a surround mode doesn't add much, and sometimes decreases enjoyment. For such movies, it is clear to me that higher reliance on the video side of the equation is necessary for the feeling of immersion in the movie. At least to me, video immersion requires size, so my next task is to get a projector .
Doug

 

[Robert McClanahan]

Some of the downsides of having a surround sound system are the need to run wires for the surrounds,the cost of surrounds,and the center channel.Where to put that bulky center channel can be an issue.I dont really like that big black box on top of my T.V.If someone listens to alot of music more than watches movies,a good two channel system can outperform a hometheater rig.The plus of a hometheater is dynamic range.You can achieve it with PCM but DTS and Dolby Digital need to be decoded accurately.You can even eliminate the sub if your main speakers can produce some bass.I have a surround system but am starting to lean toward two channel.

 

[Yogi]

Well if its only for the wife then I suggest citing a research study done by some HT mag (I forget which one) which states that after the addition of a home theater, families spend 20% (or something in the 20's) more time together than without the HT. So you can tell her 'honey I'll be spending 25% more time with you if you let me buy the new HT rig.' That way she will get to spend more time with you and you will get to spend time with your HT, while you pretend you are listening to her conversation.

 

[Phil_O]

For those of you that say you're sick of surround sound, why don't you listen to your movies in 2-channel for a while or connect your DVD player straight to your TV. Listen to movies like this for a month or 2. Now switch back to the 5.1. Ahhh.... that's more like it. You're just taking it for granted.

 

[Scott Oliver]

Listening to movies in 2 channel vs plugging a DVD player into the TV is not anywhere close to being the same thing.

Read my previous post for reference, but I sold 5 speakers, 2 subwoofers, and 2 amps for a 2 channel tube amp and a pair of much better speakers and is is just not close at all.

Better speakers and better amplification equals better sound reproduction. Now if I could afford top notch amplification and speakers for five channels plus the subwoofers and a dedicated acoustically treated room then I certainly would indulge myself and it would rock.

But until that day I will stick to a really great 2 channel set-up, for as I said 2 channels are difficult enough to get right.

 

[Tom Brennan]

Phil-O---I often listen to movies in stereo and mono but with hi-fidelity stereo and mono. I don't think your listening to the TV comparison is valid because TVs aren't hi-fi devices. Though I often watch DVDs and LDs using TV speakers anyway. Ben-Hur doesn't sound so good through TV speakers but The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is fine.
www.chicagohornspeakerclub.org

 

[Larry B]

Scott:

I agree completely with your comments and feel you hit the nail on the head when you said

2 channels are difficult enough to get right.

Regards,

Larry

 

[Jeff Adams]

Movies in 2 channel? Never again. Yes, it is true that the big budget action flicks do take full advantage of a 5.1 or more setup and is a great way to enjoy surround sound but there are alot of movies other than action that can take advantage of surround sound speakers and make the movie watching experience even that much more enjoyable. Little things like rain fall, birds chirping,wind, somebody yelling across the room, these all make a difference. Also as far as dialog goes, it sounds best coming from the center speaker. I have listened to movies in 2 channel stereo mode and don't like it as much. Now with music, its a totally different story. 2 channel is the way to go.

 

[RussKon]

I totally disagree with the premise that..."5.1 surround sound isn't necessary".....obviously you haven't heard it done right...maybe if you upgrade to some quality equipment....good speakers and proper preamp/amplifiers...5.1 sound for movies is like anything else...some of it is done poorly and some of it outstanding...i'm not talking about the big explosions...but as was mentioned by another poster...enviromental sounds like birds..rain..and music in a jazz club can really enhance the entertainment experience...one of the first dvd's that i purchased was "The Whole Nine Yards"...not a blockbuster....just very entertaining....I hadn't watched it for awhile...(in the meantime, I upgraded to a quality 5.1 system...Klipsch all aroung with a velodyne sub)....and WOW...almost a totally different experience....
give it a try in a quality enviroment...and remember...."Friends don't let friends buy Bose".....

 

[Marty Neudel]

Russ,
I think the point that Scott, Tom, and others have been making is that a true high-end stereo system may cost considerably more than most good 5.1 systems, and will produce substantially better sound. For those that can afford ML #33 amps @ $18k X 5, 5.1 is certainly going to knock the socks off anyone. However, many of us can't really afford that kind of expense.
Marty