[White Lotus]

I think the fish does most of the dampening. 

 

[bigshot]

In a bigger room, you would need a bigger fish.

 

[proton007]

^^ Now I see why the fish is pointed towards the audio setup. Its required to channel the magic.

 

[k3oxkjo]

   
Oh heck! You don't need to hear it. Why be different than everyone else who makes lists like that? All you need to do is look at the price tag and judge by that!

 
Maybe you don't need to hear it (we can only conject as to why), but I did and picked the equipment based on that. Of course, I measured and evaluated audio and video equipment professionally for a major TV network, so I probably don't know what I am doing

 .
 
Besides, why are you worried about how much the stuff costs (you have mentioned that a few times)? You are a "big shot", spend a few bux and stimulate the economy, old boy! You could afford to buy pine wood and put the remains of (presumedly) dead wildlife on your walls in your listening room, so I say, loosen up.
 
My motto: life's too short to listen to cheap hi-fi.
 
BTW, the reason I listed my equipment was... wait for it... someone asked. And in the interests of disclosure, I responded.

 

[k3oxkjo]

  This is the room. There's a ten foot wide screen that drops down behind the beam up front for the projection system.
 

 
Give me back that filet o fish
Give me that fish...

 

[ktm]

The prime reason for Blu-ray audio over other formats?
Harder to make copies. Expect the industry to go over
to this format in a big way if consumers start buying it.
CD's are just to easy to copy and put tracks on your pc.
DRM is the goal of all the big guys. Audio quality is not
the real objective here.

 

[bigshot]

  My motto: life's too short to listen to cheap hi-fi.

 
My motto is, "There's one born every minute."
 
One other observation... Originally, when you were listing all the expensive brand names, you were doing it to show that you had heard a really good 5:1 system but it didn't sound good to you. Now, a few posts along in the thread, it's your own system and you selected it carefully for optimal sound quality... money is no object for good sound.
 
Interesting how these things change depending on the context.

 

[k3oxkjo]

   
My motto is, "There's one born every minute."

 
Actually, there is one born every 4.2 seconds...

 

[k3oxkjo]

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
One other observation... Originally, when you were listing all the expensive brand names, you were doing it to show that you had heard a really good 5:1 system but it didn't sound good to you. Now, a few posts along in the thread, it's your own system and you selected it carefully for optimal sound quality... money is no object for good sound.
 
Interesting how these things change depending on the context.

 
It would be easier to respond to this if it made more sense and was more factual. But I will try and decode...
 
a) I didn't say the system "didn't sound good to [me]". My point was that it didn't benefit from the rear channels for non-gimmicked music. Actually, the system sounded quite good, overall.
 
b) I mentioned in my original post that I was experimenting in my personal system. I listed the equipment I used when asked. Even so, I have heard countless surround systems in my travels, so my opinion wasn't based on any one system, either my own or someone elses, but my long-term experience.
 
c) I never said money is no object, and that system certainly would not have qualified as money no object. But you are the one with the obsession over money it would seem, so, whatever...
 
Magnepan, Bryston, Yamaha, ProAc and Acoustic Energy "expensive brand names"? My poor, naive friend... LOL.

 

[bigshot]

Perhaps I didn't understand. A few questions...
 
What non-gimmicked music did you listen to?
How long did you spend EQing and balancing your channels and how did you go about it?
What DSP did you use to convert from 2 channel to 5:1?
Did you experiment with synthesized environments?

 

[ktm]

Getting a 5.1 system right isn't going to happen here. All speakers in that area are subject to being moved at any moment
by the lady of the house at any time. And any object can become a plant stand without prior notice.
I don't watch many movies, so I really am not going to fight her on that.
My small 2 channel system in the spare bedroom is for the moment safe. But she has mentioned do something with that mess
several times. r

 

[proton007]

  Getting a 5.1 system right isn't going to happen here. All speakers in that area are subject to being moved at any moment
by the lady of the house at any time. And any object can become a plant stand without prior notice.
I don't watch many movies, so I really am not going to fight her on that.
My small 2 channel system in the spare bedroom is for the moment safe. But she has mentioned do something with that mess
several times. r

 
You need a man cave.

 

[proton007]

@Bigshot,
 
The way I see it is typical consumer mindset, minimal effort for optimal performance.
 
I doubt most listeners (including me), even the 'high end' ones, are aware of what can be done by 5.1, because good examples don't exist in shops and displays, they are probably present in people's homes.
 
That said, the music industry keeps pumping out higher bit rate and other bs because they're easier to sell, minimal effort for optimal profit.

 

[bigshot]

A man cave with a fish!

 

[Happy Camper]

I blame it on mixers and musicians not knowing what to do with it cause it's not the format that lost, it was the offerings. I'd love to hear my progressive rock creations of the 60-70s done in 5.1. The one given the opportunity didn't impress me. My 5.1 sits here as a movie rig, languishing away in disuse until a promising new movie comes along while the headphone rig gets all the music play.