[Nightfall]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly I like my home theater to be at a volume equivalent to real life. That is: someone talking sounds like they're in the same room with me while someone shooting a gun sounds like they're really shooting a gun. That's too loud for a lot of people but not nearly as loud as people trying to show off.

I have to agree with you Kelly. The whole point of a good/great home theater is to make a movie as real, and as lifelike as possible. A gunshot SHOULD sound actual, as well as explosions and dialogue. While these are somewhat loud levels, as you pointed out, they arent even close to those reached by the dolts trying to blow off the roof to impress people.
If you arent after real, live sounding audio reproductions of the soundtrack of a movie, what would you bother with home theater? What would be the point?
I also agree that proper setup and a good, well made, well crafted and plotted film is essential. No equipment, no matter how incredible its technical qualities are can salvage a bad movie.


JC

 

[zeplin]

i love my modest HT setup and i'm glad i have a separate one for movies and don't have to use one setup for both movies and music...my Onkyo receiver is incapable of doing it. what i really don't get is why people spend huge amounts of money on a system that can't do 2 channel very well? i guess other people have their needs, but since HT theater movie soundtracks aren't recorded with the accuracy and quality of music cd's (or other formats), what more can one really get out of spending elaborate amounts on a HT setup? what also really pisses me off is when my friends and i are watching movies in my room on my HT setup, and they tell me to turn it up past normal levels...when we all can easily hear everyone talking clearly and thoroughly?? everyone in this thread has been right so far in saying that people just equate loudness levels with quality and that is just sad to think about because one: they will injure their hearing and 2: they have no idea what they're missing out on with ggood sound quality and reproduction from 2 channel music systems (becuase they think a full on HT surround sound setup is the best kind of sound one can buy). i just say oh well

 

[setmenu]

If gun shots etc were to sound real they would have to be pushing 140db plus, time for ear defenders methinks

.



Setmenu

 

[gpalmer]

The things that annoy me about most "Home Theater" systems I hear is the setup of two items:
1) Integration of the sub woofers with the rest of the system. How many times have you listened to a setup and the subwoofer is +10 dB or more to the rest of the system? Ick!

2) Same problem with the center channel.

There is one thing I would like to point out though, just because it has multiple channels and can play movies doesn't mean it's only purpose is to show movies. There seems to be a trend here to condemn anything with multiple channels as bad that I disagree with. My multi-channel system does just fine with CDs and DVD-Audio discs. My system is going most of the time when I'm home and usually it's playing music. It was expensive, but it's also the thing I use most in the house, so I can live with that.

 

[zeplin]

in the past and most of the time, multi channel receivers cannot do 2 channel music as well as 2 channel systems. they just aren't made for that and they aren't built with 2 chanel audio in mind. i don't know how many people, audiophiles, and sales people for that matter, have told me this. and i strongly believe it too because i've heard for myself with my system..and my receiver is a 800 dollar reciever. you'de think that it would do a very good job regarding two channel audio, but the fact of the matter is, it doesn't...it wasn't made for 2 channel sound, but more for surround sound. and even though you have to spend more money, it almost always holds true that buying separates is always better. i dunno, maybe the trend is changing, if it is, it is doing so slowly.

 

[gpalmer]

Check my profile if you want to see where I'm coming from.

It's true there is a lot of crap out there, but still, to automatically assume it is bad and can't produce good music because it is multi-channel isn't right, and it's one of those things I hear all the time. I mention I have a multi-channel system and immediately the reaction is negative.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally posted by zeplin what also really pisses me off is when my friends and i are watching movies in my room on my HT setup, and they tell me to turn it up past normal levels...when we all can easily hear everyone talking clearly and thoroughly??

Maybe your friends have hearing loss already.

 

[archosman]

On both systems I've calibrated I've always had to go back and actually reduce the center channel...

Quote:

Originally posted by gpalmer The things that annoy me about most "Home Theater" systems I hear is the setup of two items: 1) Integration of the sub woofers with the rest of the system. How many times have you listened to a setup and the subwoofer is +10 dB or more to the rest of the system? Ick! 2) Same problem with the center channel. There is one thing I would like to point out though, just because it has multiple channels and can play movies doesn't mean it's only purpose is to show movies. There seems to be a trend here to condemn anything with multiple channels as bad that I disagree with. My multi-channel system does just fine with CDs and DVD-Audio discs. My system is going most of the time when I'm home and usually it's playing music. It was expensive, but it's also the thing I use most in the house, so I can live with that.

 

[redshifter]

i have a decent ht with a denon rec and a sony wega flat screen anamorphic tv. all the ht speakers are matched and i have a pair of advent speakers i use just for music. i do NOT own a sub. why? because i live in an apartment building. i personally know three tenants here who own expensive subs but never use them because of the noise complaints.

if i am watching a movie and want more bass, i'll simply run my advents in line with the ht speakers, and balance the sound of the front l & r.

another option of course is to use my cd1700 and meta42, with the surround signal matrixed into stereo through the dac's in my md deck. the sony cd1700 is amazing for ht, the soundstage is so wide that sometimes i can hear surround effect behind me, and often i forget i'm wearing headphones at all.

you know what is fun if you have a large collection of dvd's, is do a "best of" screening. pull a bunch of dvd's out of your collection, and show your favorite scenes: motorcycle chase from "akira"; cpr scene from "the thing"; lobby scene from "the matrix", etc. i'm sure purists are screaming bloody murder, but try it, it's fun.

 

[kelly]

redshifter
I was thinking about a best of type thing on my file server when I get that running - same idea: a few short films, calibration stuff and cool demo scenes from films.

As always, I'm two steps ahead of myself, though.

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly redshifter I was thinking about a best of type thing on my file server when I get that running - same idea: a few short films, calibration stuff and cool demo scenes from films. As always, I'm two steps ahead of myself, though.

kelly,
when i worked in the windows media lab our admin had set up a streaming media server, which showed UNCOMPRESSED dvd movies over the lan (it was a push type stream, so you had to know when movies started). i even lent him my copy of "ghost in the shell", but after he copied it and put it in rotation, the *ahem* NSFW aspects forced him to take it down (high security but semi-public lab). we also had tons of test videos, from "the matrix" to mr. rogers.

of course, those guys in the lab didn't know the 1st thing about surround systems, or headphones.

 

[Trawlerman]

Quote:

Originally posted by archosman Could be worse... we could still have the 8track...

I still have 8-Track....

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Quote:

I will say this... most home theatre systems suck in terms of standard 2 channel stereo playback. Those little speakers sound great for movies but they don't hold a candle to a real stereo setup.

Can't you just use real stereo speakers for the two front channels?

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Bloggs Can't you just use real stereo speakers for the two front channels?

You can use real speakers in all 5 (or more) locations.

 

[SunByrne]

Interesting thread...

I have a 5.1 setup in my living room, on a not-especially-wonderful 32" TV. I almost consider my TV more of a video accessory to my audio... I find films with good sound to be much more pleasing, and most of the movies I actually own (other than the complete Pixar collection for my little one) I bought for the story or the sound, or both, not so much for the special effects and picture.

When I watch movies, I generally don't use superhigh volume levels, especially when I have other people over to watch. And sometimes I go to the theater when I want to be visually impressed by a movie, but I'm finding theaters more and more annoying with more talking, cell phones, and just rude people who do things like bring their 6-year-old to an R-rated move which starts at 10:30pm so they're up too late and get cranky. What?

Anyway, I agree that a lot of HT setups are horrible for 2-ch audio. But it doesn't have to be. 2-ch performance was one of my major criteria for selecting speakers and an AV receiver. I have full-size fronts and a pretty musical sub, and I crossed a lot of receivers off my list for consideration because of crappy 2-ch performance (Denons in particular, Onkyo too, but not quite as bad). It's not spectacular for 2-ch audio, but it's no slouch and it sounds a hell of a lot better than the 2-ch setups I've found in most homes.

So maybe the problem isn't that HT is intrinsically awful, just that it's really easy to abuse and make into something awful.