Is surround sound really necessary? (1 Viewer)

[Yogi]

Surround sound does have its merits, IMHO. I agree that two channel sound when implemented correctly and when played thru a good system can sound awsomely 3 dimensional and surround like but it would take mega bucks to get there. A Mark Levinson separates system through Dunlavys could sound better than most surround systems but it takes considerable amount of $$$ to achieve that. Surround sound can achieve that with a relatively modest budget. So people touting the merits of 2 channel sound 'done right' have to spend a lot of time and money to get there while with surround you can get decent sound for a relatively small amount of money and get there quickly. That being said I myself prefer watching some movies in 2 channel sound while some others (like Spiderman and Episode I) are worth wathing in nothing but surround sound. I cant imagine pods racing between just two speakers back and forth or springing in and out of just one speaker. That to me just doesn't cut it and untill I can afford a ML/Dunlavy setup I am going to enjoy my surround movies in surround sound only.
I rest my case your honour.

 

[Tom Brennan]

Jeff Kohn---You said "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? "

I don't know , is it? In any case to refute my arguement you'll have to come up with something better than that, simply asserting I've lost won't do the trick.

 

[Tom Brennan]

Doug---I think you misunderstand my position, perhaps I failed to state it well, or at all.
I've no beef with surround sound as such and I use it myself. But to answer the thread's initial question, no, I don't think it's really necessary.
As for old hi-fi vs new; it's my belief that hi-fi took a huge wrong turn many years ago with the introduction of small low-efficiency speakers. The lack of dynamic life and high distortion and compression of such speakers led conventional audiophiles down the path of "imaging and soundstage" since those were the only things such speakers could do. So audiophiles became fixated on the sound instead of the music and started describing music in visual rather than aural terms.
Yes, I think a single old Altec 605 studio monitor and a Fisher 80AZ WILL trounce most hi-end systems in terms of dynamics, low distortion, clarity, tonality and a general ability to sound like real music is in the room with you. Very few modern tube amps and loudspeakers are built to the standards of precision and quality of those pieces. You
Is this reactionary? Yes, a reaction to the rotten sound usually heard with hi-end hi-fi today. I've been with this hobby over 30 years and I've heard quite a few things and I've come to my conclusions.
Am I prejudiced? Yes indeed, in favor of good sound.
By the way, I use new horn gear and electronics too. Old Altecs and JBLs aren't good because they're old, they're good because they're Altecs and JBLs. Some newer Altec and JBL Pro horn gear is even better.
www.chicagohornspeakerclub.org

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Nice attitude. If you hold most members in such contempt, why are you here?

No contempt. I would sincerely recommend books, though, I think most would enjoy them.

 

[Reginald Trent]

Quote:

"Is surround sound really necessary?"
-------------------------

The true answer is YES and NO.
If you are watching a movie with a mono/stereo soundtrack and/or have no desire to reproduce 5.1 audio then the answer is NO. However, if you have a DVD with 5.1 audio and want to hear the audio as intended by the DVD maker then the answer is YES.

 

[Tom Brennan]

Reginald---That's reasonable.

 

[Doug Brewster]

Tom,
Thank for your intelligent and clearly stated response. I too prefer large speakers, but feel that imagery is an important part of the audio presentation. I tend to favor certain types of speakers for certain types of listening.
Horns, to me, are meant to be played loud, which is the way I like to hear music (at my age and my hearing deficits, loud is the only way I can enjoy it ). This is how you usually hear music at live performances or movies at the theater. Horns are usually lacking in small detail, but more than make up for that with their tendency toward the robust. Loud audio, by the way, also leans toward the kinetic and is therefore not entirely aural.
There are times when I want to here all the details at a softer volume, and with absolute lack of distortion. Without specifying brands, there are a number of companies that do this well.
Most of the time I prefer a really well-defined sound-stage. Vandersteen makes some very large speakers that do this very well. I'm certain there are others, but I just like the way Vandy's sound. They, like horns, are also quite robust, but a bit more refined and capable of presenting detail at lower volumes and that incredible image.
Having said all that, I will confess to limited space and money and therefore I get by an odd mixture adequate equipment. I used to have a room where I listened to 2 channel, but a number of things have rendered that impossible to access. I then depended on my surround system in 2 channel mode and listening at more moderate volume as the sound tended to permeate the entire house. Now, due to further limitations, I have even fewer opportunities to enjoy music and even movie watching is limited. :frowning:
Occasionally, I resort to trips to my local high end shop just to experience the kind of audio I would have if there were not some conspiracy (no doubt by Nazi's) to keep me from enjoying it at home.
Finally,let me restate that while I agree that older speaker and tube amp designs have their merits, I still feel that the detail (that is increasingly hard for me to hear) is presented much better by modern electronics and speakers. It sounds as if you appreciate the latter to some degree, but much prefer the former. "I've been with this hobby over 30 years and I've heard quite a few things and I've come to my conclusions." What people like is what they like. Your views are clear and well represented. I also appreciate your tolerance of those who have opposing ideas and understand your desire to defend your own. It will inspire some to investigate these ideas and increase their experience of audio. What could possibly be wrong with that?

 

[Tim Fennell]

Tom,

I checked our your web site. It brought back memories of when I was young and was handed a set of specs for JBL components and decided to build my own speakers.

The next week the dealer got the price list.
I found out that the D180 woofer was actually LESS than the midrange ($300ea) and the diffraction horn ($400ea) and I would have been spending approximately $2500 to build my own speakers.

Tim

 

[Tom Brennan]

Tim----Yes, good quality compression drivers are very expensive devices, that's why I look for used ones. I just paid $300 for a pair of used Altec 288 compression drivers and figure I got a real good deal. Generally the Altec and JBL stuff holds it's value very well though, kinda the Harleys of the speaker world. I don't know if that's good or bad.
www.chicagohornspeakerclub.org

 

[Jim Williams]

It really looks like I opened a can of worms here. I had no idea that my question would elicit such a spirited debate. Thanks for all of your comments.
I am now the owner of a new surround sound system. I purchased a Panasonic SA-HE100. The decision to buy that model was based partially on some of the comments I have read in the Receivers/Separates/Amps forum and partly because of the review in Sound & Vision magazine. I really have not had time to really play with it yet but I did stick in my "Aliens" DVD and watched part of it, and I must say that I really like the depth that I feel from the 5.1 sound. I plan to put it to a real test this weekend.

No, surround sound is not necessary, but it sure is awesome.

 

[Jeff Engel]

I think that about sums it up Jim. "not necessary, but it sure is awesome."

 

[Will Gatlin Jr]

Jeff...

Pretty much!!

 

[Robert_Gaither]

I'll give my take on this subject, I think that if the person wants playback to be like what the director intended, that person will need the appropriate # of speakers the sound was mixed in (plus a sub or two depending on room size and spl level). Now I'll be honest and state that I bravely make this statement after reading all of you other's opinions (so as to not put my foot in my mouth too soon). These are of course based on things as budget limits, room size, and spousal approval factors allow.

Now concerning music and sound mixes in modern movies, what disappoints me most is the simple fact these are sometimes done simply for marketting (movie music soundtrack tie-ins) and post sales for HT demonstrations (no one can convince me that movies such as "The Haunting", "Episode I", and "U571" are even good movies or have any artistic appeal; pure crap imho though are great at showing how dynamic and deep that one's sub can perform). Personally very few scenes in movies that had music in them are done correctly imho (I won't even go into full detail about how music absolutely ruins horror movies, why is it necessary to be used to grab people's attention, is the plot really this bad and desperate?) and most now days keep trying to push people into a market tie-in to buy the soundtrack so bad that they actually put commercials on DVDs so people will know what to buy. I cringe every time I read a post on recommended movies that people recommend movies only because they have a chapter or two to demo their subs.

 

[Doug Brewster]

"(I won't even go into full detail about how music absolutely ruins horror movies, why is it necessary to be used to grab people's attention, is the plot really this bad and desperate?...I cringe every time I read a post on recommended movies that people recommend movies only because they have a chapter or two to demo their subs."
Perhaps we should parse the phrase "surround sound"...
It seems to me that most of the argument is not regarding sound quality but music quality. Those who make disparaging remarks about sounds and special effects in movies are apparently unaware of the history of high fidelity. It was sound effects records that generated enthusiasm and interest regarding home high fidelity equipment. The public has seemed to prefer dynamic sound over music. It is more novel and requires less time (and a shorter attention span). It seems to reside in the memory longer (not the actual sound, but the experience of it). That short burst of "bass thud" as the T Rex is about to enter the picture... Well, now you understand what I mean. I have, in one phrase, built a word picture that causes most people to know exactly what movie moment I'm talking about; the
scene in a movie that is full of big scenes.
Don't discount surround sound, or even sound in general, as an integral part of movie making. If you don't like it, you're in the minority. That makes you neither right nor wrong; just out of touch with the general public. And whether or not you feel that's a good thing has nothing to do with anyone's level of intelligence.

 

[Doug Brewster]

Almost forgot the important part,

Congratulations Jim. You chose an inexpensive way to begin the home theater experience... (Wonder when the upgrades will begin. I say "begin", because they will never end.)You have just wrestled with the WAF (wife approval factor) and won the first round. Don't let that inspire any over-confidence. The WAF is usually victorious and only occasionally allows small gains in order to catch you off guard. When you want the 15" sub, you'll settle for the 10" because the 15 is too big and attracts too much attention to itself. Even the 10 will probably require a small plant to hide it. But, believe me, the 10 is better than alimony... Besides, she'd probably win custody of it anyway. I suspect wives actually enjoy audio more than do their husbands, but if they let us have exactly what we want we become spoiled and controlling.