Is surround sound really necessary? (1 Viewer)

[Tom Brennan]

Marty---You got most of my point but I wasn't talking about cost at all, indeed I hold the modern "high-end" scene in contempt. I think I can get better sound from an old $300 Fisher 80AZ mono tube amp and a 1960s beater Altec VOT than high-enders will get spending many thousands. In fact I have.
But I do prefer one or two channels of superb sound (whatever superb means to one) than many channels of less good sound.
www.chicagohornspeakerclub.org

 

[Tom Brennan]

Russ---You said "obviously you haven't heard it done right...maybe if you upgrade to some quality equipment....good speakers and proper preamp/amplifiers"
I dunno, I use pretty good stuff. Your Klipsch and Velodyne would fail to impress me. I look at them the way you seem to look at Bose, howdaya like that?
So yeah, I think I've heard it done right Russ, it just doesn't interest me much anymore.
Yesterday I was watching The Godfather and there's a scene in an office with an Aquarium, we see a character looking at it in the establishing shot. And through the entire scene you hear this damned aquarium burbleing away in the left speaker (regardless of camera POV) while these guys are talking some serious and interesting business but I'm listening to the aquarium. Now what in the Hell does that add to the movie? Nothing. But some seem fascinated by this kind of irellevent and distracting sonic detail. Not me.
www.chicagohornspeakerclub.org

 

[Doug Brewster]

"...I often listen to movies in stereo and mono but with hi-fidelity stereo and mono...Ben-Hur doesn't sound so good through TV speakers but The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is fine."
"...indeed I hold the modern "high-end" scene in contempt. I think I can get better sound from an old $300 Fisher 80AZ mono tube amp and a 1960s beater Altec VOT than high-enders will get spending many thousands. In fact I have."

"...I do prefer one or two channels of superb sound (whatever superb means to one) than many channels of less good sound."

"But some seem fascinated by this kind of irellevent and distracting sonic detail. Not me."


The central theme in these the preference of older things, thinking they sound better or it is easier to concentrate on the story without the improved dynamic range and channel separation of modern technology. This is a common belief among audiophiles, however, to prefer mono sound is much less common.

Alot of people prefer books to movies. They find them more detailed and interesting. They would find movies too high tech.

I wouldn't begrudge any preference for lower detail, less imaging, and a generally bland presentation of movies. I would only say that most people would find it far less interesting than multichannel detailed sound. Most movies today are mixed for this type of audio. It is intended to be a multisensory experience. There has even been at least one effort to incorporate the olfactory. The objections are noted but seem reactionary. Most of us live in a modern world and can appreciate all forms of audio presentation including high-end stereo or mono, as well as lower end multichannel. Certainly high-end 2 channel sound can be satisfying, but not many can afford to spend as much money as necessary to do it properly. This problem is further compounded by absence of any form of multichannel home theater sound. With the amount of entertainment available in this newer format, not having this capability is more of a disability than not having high end 2 channel or mono capability. To think otherwise is to serve one's own prejudice and disregard the preferences of the vast majority of people. This is not to identify the majority as "right", but only to acknowledge the bulk of the modern public.

Count me in that group of people who feels surround sound is worth it. Having a limited budget I would definitely spend more money on high quality surround equipment than on other audio equipment as it would better serve me and more of the people I know.
"...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...", tells me that the original writer and his wife would probably agree.

 

[Seth_S]

I'm sure most of you will disagree with me, but I find surround sound to be gimmicky. Films are visual. If a director is relying on being able to produce sounds from the back of a room, then they are obviously not doing their job. Sound is obviously a crucial part of a film, but I can't think of any instances were mono or stereo sound actually hampered a director's vision. A better use of your money would be either on a receiver, stereo speakers and/or display.

 

[Jeff Kohn]

Films are visual.

Films may be visual, but they are not just visual. Let me ask you a question. Do you think music used in movies is unnecessary and distracting?

 

[Seth_S]

In many instances, yes. Almost all directors just use it to cue the audience into how they should be feeling incase the visuals weren't a strong enough clue.

 

[David Judah]

This is an interesting discussion. I remember the many arguments for original audio presentations of older movies on DVD(Jaws, for example). It seems to me, to be consistent, that we should strive to reproduce a DVD soundtrack as it was produced(theatrically), and for most new releases that means surround.

I appreciate the 2 channel sensibility, and it is true that those who don't have a seperate 2 channel room are compromising, but the same can be said of someone who is reproducing an original surround soundtrack on a 2 channel rig.

DJ

 

[Doug Brewster]

"I appreciate the 2 channel sensibility, and it is true that those who don't have a seperate 2 channel room are compromising, but the same can be said of someone who is reproducing an original surround soundtrack on a 2 channel rig."

Your point is exactly mine. Every new audiological innovation has been resisted. There are still occasional arguments that CD's are inferior to LP's and should not be included in a "good" sound system. Similar arguments have been made re: digital recording.

Since this forum is a Home Theater forum and it seems odd to me that die hard 2 channel supporters would be found here.That having been said, it seems as odd that it would not be recognized that most movies use music as an integral part of their story-telling. Recognizing that, it should be just as obvious that sound would be an integral part, and that placement of that sound is vital. Among the top grossing movies of all time would be the Star Wars series. In the past year, The Lord of the Rings has been among the top. Watching those movies in 2 channels or less can be satisfying, but does not represent the intention of the "authors" ("authors", in this instance standing for the producers, directors, and production companies). Besides that, they just aren't as enjoyable (for those who enjoy them).

It is my suspicion that some people are simply reactionary when it comes to audio technologies. There are also a (very) few who just plain don't like the changes that new technology yields. They really believe they can hear noticeable degradation in quality of sound. My point of view is that they are entitled to their opinion, but don't try to persuade me that this opinion is "right". It is obvious that the majority of the public (and by far the majority who invests in home theater equipment) likes multichannel sound and would rather have their movies played back in this mode.

 

[David Judah]

Since this forum is a Home Theater forum and it seems odd to me that die hard 2 channel supporters would be found here

You haven't seen anything. Wait until we discuss 2 channel vs. multi-channel music.
DJ

 

[Jeff Kohn]

In many instances, yes. Almost all directors just use it to cue the audience into how they should be feeling incase the visuals weren't a strong enough clue.

Well at least now we know where you're coming from. I don't think too many people would agree that music is unnecessary and just used as a crutch by incompetent movie makers.

 

[DarrellP]

It's only necessary if you want to jump out of your seat once in awhile. You need to watch the DTS version of The Haunting. There is a scene where the door slams behind her (you as well) and with the 6.1 channel decoding putting that slam right behind your head and sending a resounding UMPH to the sub, you will jump right out of your chair.
On the wife side, I watched "Snow Falling on Cedars" with my wife and the sounds of the rain while the kids were in the forest was just amazing. It sounds like you are right there in the movie with them. This is a very good movie for the "wife factor" for sound and vision.

 

[Larry B]

Darrell:

It's only necessary if you want to jump out of your seat once in awhile. You need to watch the DTS version of The Haunting.

It would take a considerable sum of money for me to sit through that stinker a second time. It was an embarrassment to the art of movie making.

Larry

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Alot of people prefer books to movies. They find them more detailed and interesting. They would find movies too high tech.

Books do require a bit more effort of the mind, and so disqualify them for most members I think. Anyone ever read "A Confederacy of Dunces"? No way to make a movie of that, not even close.

 

[Todd Hochard]

Books do require a bit more effort of the mind, and so disqualify them for most members I think.

Nice attitude.If you hold most members in such contempt, why are you here?
I enjoy surround sound. After all, life doesn't come at you from two points.

 

[Reginald Trent]

Actually no speakers are necessary. Just turn on the close captions or subtitles. But just like OAR is that what the director intended?

 

[Jason Bell]

I think surround sound is very necessary for newer movies that includes all genres and not just action movies(which I dont like anyways). Some of my most memorable experiences with my Surround setup have been during Suspense movies where a nice subtle mix can really add to the tension you feel. I dont feel like this sort of experience can be experienced with two channels. Some movies mixes are over the top but in many cases if the surrounds are distracting you dont have your system calibrated correctly. If my surrounds are set too hot they can become very annoying real fast. Two channel does sound decent especially if you just downsample the 5.1 mix into stereo. I would pick my middle of the road surround setup over a more expensive two channel setup, for movies. Its just more immersive. Just my opinion.

 

[Will Gatlin Jr]

WOW!! And we haven't even gotten to 7.1.
With proper set up, add two more spks (side), and your rear soundfied can be just as good as your front. Power/balance all around is the key!! "If you live in the past, how can you advance into the future?" You can't!!

 

[Tom Brennan]

Will---You said "If you live in the past, how can you advance into the future?"
That's trite, sounds like a Nazi slogan. The National Socialists thought they were marching into the future too, as it turned out they were marching to ruin and a rendevous with suicide and the hangman. Just where are you "advancing" to? Time will catch up with you. In the end all any of us advance to is the grave and most of us are soon forgotten. Well, we do remember the National Socialists.
We are free to look about us and choose that which pleases us; in my case some stuff I like is old and some is new. I like loudspeaker designs from the 1930s but I like modern televisions. I like old guns but new cars. I read LOTS of history because it's interesting and gives insights into human behaviour that will likely never change. I prefer Leonidas to George W. Bush. I choose what to like and refuse to have things thrust upon me just because they're new.
www.chicagohornspeakerclub.org

 

[Doug Brewster]

"I'll bet Tom is laughing like hell at this. Hey, Tom, are you just wallowing in the euphonically restricted dynamics of your Altecs?"

Who said the Altecs were euphonically restricted? It has nothing to do with the speakers. It has to do with the dynamic range of the audio signal source. It would have been more pertinent to address the remarks about "the improved dynamic range and channel separation of modern technology", which was directed toward "I think I can get better sound from an old $300 Fisher 80AZ mono tube amp and a 1960s beater Altec VOT than high-enders will get spending many thousands." Those who believe that older amps and speakers are superior to modern high end equipment are merely prisoners of their own prejudice. Mind you, I have no objection to someone holding that belief and enjoying that type of equipment, but it is reflective of the reactionary nature of a select group in audiophilic society. Refinement of true high end equipment renders it measurably cleaner and more natural than items produced in the '60's. If, however, the statement was about superiority of old high end equipment over new lower end items... Well now, there's a horse race.

"The National Socialists thought they were marching into the future too, as it turned out they were marching to ruin and a rendezvous with suicide and the hangman." Sounds like a quote from a "Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich" book jacket. We are discussing surround sound here, not world history. I doubt there will be anyone in the gas chambers for preferring monaural recordings of black and white movies. At the same time, I doubt DTS will be charged as a war crime.

"We are free to look about us and choose that which pleases us; in my case some stuff I like is old and some is new."
I fully agree with you Tom, and we might even agree about some old things, and I truly don't mean to be disrespectful. I think it's great that some people really believe their older equipment is superior. It gives some who have never heard the quality of that stuff an opportunity to experience it. My objection is to your attempts to discourage those who enjoy things that you dislike. I like old guns and new guns, old cars and new cars. I can enjoy both and see the value of each....

I love surround sound and appreciate old amps and speakers. These things are not, to me, mutually exclusive. I'm suggesting that they needn't be to anyone. I'm suggesting that those who prefer surround sound are experiencing something otherwise unavailable. I think it's a good thing and does a better job of presenting today's movies the way they were meant to be heard.

 

[Jeff Kohn]

That's trite, sounds like a Nazi slogan

Isn't it pretty much an understood rule on the internet that when somebody stoops to throwing around the term 'Nazi' that they've already lost the argument?