Movies through your stereo - a poll

Ours is all together. The SuperNait and S600s provide sound for music, TV, movies (DVD, Bluray, Cable) and web-based video. We don't have a separate home theatre or listening room. Just one big living space.

plexxx: I am keeping ours separate--in a way.  The speakers for the two-channel (SU) are in the living room.  We do not have a TV in the living room.  Rather, the main TV--probably going to be a 60 inch--will reside in a combination guest/craft/workout room that is quite large.  Every room in the house, including the garage, will  be hooked up to a whole house distribution system of lesser (but good) background sound quality.  There are 8 sources that can be plugged into this unit which delivers 35 non-Naim watts into each target zone.  One of the sources will be the TV I mentioned.  similarly, the room it is in will have two speakers which will be one of the zones. 

The only connection I am planning will be to run the digital out from my Superuniti into a relatively cheap DAC and route the analog output into the distribution unit--so whatever happens to be playing on the SU at any given time can serve as one of the sources available to any given room in the house.  I am sure there will be some latency between the 2-channel system and the whole-house unit, so I doubt I will ever have the volume up on the SU while anyone is listening to its output on the whole house setup.

I have never gone in for surround sound, although I have had it--and oddly enough, even watching a spectacular movie on a big-screen TV, I am not impressed with the audio effects.  I'm pretty much an uninteresting old fart.

Russ

My second system is TV/DVD/VideoStremer run into nDAC/555PS/282/HC/250 + Katana speakers.

No subwoofer. NAP250 + Katana's folded 3 meters horn go low enough to make a sub redundant.

My video sources have a setup to smear the LFE track over two channels which creates a full effect of sub presence. 

The way I watch movies today is amazing.

The same system streams hi-quality audio with Linn RDS.

My son's Harman Kardon 5.1 home theater with Infinity speakers and subwoofer is a total looser comparing to this wonderful stereo system.

Separate.  My hi-fi is 2.0 and in a separate listening room (formerly know as the living room).  The TV has a Samsung 2.1 - a sound bar with wireless subwoofer - good enough for what's on there.  Don't watch many DVDs, mostly sports.

Together for me in my main living room - Sky HD & PS3 (For Games & Bluray) via optical into SuperUniti + Wlison Benesch Vertex speakers. My mates 5.1 home theatre set ups are all vanquished with ease by this system

I have combined TV into the hifi - 2-ch only 

The TV feeds the SN DAC via a 5m optic "cable" as this is the only way to capture sound from all of TV PVR & BRP 

The sound from TV  (no PVR & no BRP) is perfect

Sound using BRP as source is perfect.

Sound using PVR as source frequently starts OK but soon goes hissy,  it can be fixed my shifting SN input button to a dead input for a few seconds but the hiss may or may not come back again.  

TV BRP & PVR are all Sony -  PVR software is latest rev - Sony say its the Naim DAC not able to process the PVR audio code

Any readers with suggestions/ideas will be gratefully received  

We have 2 channel DVD sound through the hi-fi. If your TV and hi-fi are in the same room it does seem a shame not to do this, as the result is infinitely better than any TV's on-board sound system. One reason not to do it is that it does require the TV to be situated between the speakers, which may not be either possible, domestically acceptable or pleasing according to how your room is arranged. There is also a case for saying that anything situated between the speakers will degrade the sound. Personally I've never been convinced of this, accept that it may impede stereo imaging which is totally unimportant to me anyway.

Several years ago we had a full 5.1 surround set-up. Once the novelty value of hearing sound effects coming from behind you had worn off I could see no advantage over a 2 channel set-up. Indeed in the end I actually found it distracting from the movie rather than increasing my involvement in it. I am perhaps biased though, since probably more than 90% of what my wife and I watch is relatively old and recorded in mono!

Peter

Together.

My primary system CAN be run as a part of the AV.

Although generally I save the main amps and speakers for music - and watch most video in glorious 1.1; my main amps are now valve. I use a 140 for the centre and a 250 for the rears.

I can stream the music DVDs with a PCM soundtrack via my Oppo into my nDAC - but generally don't, as the SQ is so much poorer than the NS01; So I have ripped the soundtracks from the DVDs separately, and listen to these via the NS01.

The times I listen to the full 5.1 are for BIG films with good soundtracks.

M

My stereo's incorporated into my AV system and I wouldn't have it any other way. I'm currently forced to use the weedy TV speakers 'cos a couple of my units are away being DR'd & it's pretty dire.

To those who think a proper surround system doesn't work & they prefer stereo, I wonder how much you've invested in the multichannel sound in comparison to your main stereo? Setting up a high-quality AV system, with all 5.1 or 7.1 channels of discrete audio, is an expensive and complex business but if you like the cinema experience it must be done properly, otherwise you're wasting your time and money.

Tony,

I agree that with a film with a well engineered soundtrack full on surround sound is great.

But, much of the TV time has been taken up by my daughters watching Friends, Buffy, Red Dwarf etc.; Juliette loves classic BBC type dramas, and I enjoy many older films.

For these 1.1 is fine.

M

Well we had a DVD5/AV2 and a 140 to power the rears. Rear speakers and sub were Castle, main speakers IBL's. No centre speaker at that time since it would have had to sit directly above an electric fire. Image via a projector. It certainly worked in the sense that it did what it was supposed to do as far as steering sound images around the room goes. On big action movies it was a very impressive experience, no question. However for me the "impressiveness" of it eventually detracted rather than added to my enjoyment of a movie. The whole thing was too "full on".

It really depends on how you like to enjoy watching things, and what kinds of things you enjoy watching.  Personally I like to settle down with a glass of wine and just gently lose myself in a good story. Crash bang wallop sound effects are impressive but they don't really float my boat. For the type of thing we mostly watch, eg. Dad's Army, The Sweeney, I'm Alright Jack, Private's Progress, Hammer Films etc. (you get the idea, all vintage stuff) 2 channel on a modest size TV screen is all that is required for complete enjoyment.

Peter

I can run my DVDs through my SN and listen in 2 channel - although I usually don't prefer to do so.  I consider the stereo a primarily music feature.  If I am listening to a concert DVD I definitely use the SN, and in those cases stereo works just fine, since it is just fine for listening to all my other music.  I don't need crowd noise from behind me.

There is, as Tony points out, a huge difference between a good and poor AV (5.1/7.1) system, but to me, it is a poor ROI for all the extra outlay required...but for others, it is their preference as they are more into the AV scene than am I.

I have just added a Pioneer SC-LX75 to my main system, so the 82/supercap/135's NBL's handle the front channels, then the Pioneer drives IBL's as surrounds, and will shortly drive an Axess centre channel.

Will run in 5.0 for now, and decide later if I want/need a sub.

For big action/sci-fi etc movies the surround sound is amazing, for regular TV the Pioneer will let me scale down to either stereo, or I can run the front 3 speakers and leave the surround off.

As my watching is mainly movies, maybe 3 TV shows a week and international rugby when it's on, the surround system is great for me. If you are not into watching big blockbuster films a great deal, then running in 2 channel is probably enough.

Simon

Don't let's forget the thread title  - it's movies, not TV programs. And good surround is by no means solely about crash bang wallop action movies. Some of the best are very subtle and create a particular ambience that is extremely effective.

To re-emphasise, I'm only interested in a properly matched and set up home cinema system, with matching speakers, including subwoofer and centre channel (probably the most important of all). No down-mixing or pseudo surround processing. If the original sound's stereo then that's how to listen to it.

If you don't watch many movies, then don't bother with surround, and don't mess with a half-baked solution, stick with stereo.

I run my bluray player into my Supernait dac for both music and movies (it's my transport for CDs).  Sounds great to my ears for both movies and concert dvds. 

I also run my apple tv into the supernait and streaming movies sound excellent also.

I'm with Tony here ... properly set up a surround sound system should be capable of being subtle and atmospheric - take the forest sequences in "Avatar" for example - when required, not everything should be a rollercoaster thrill-a-second event. (But, it should also have enough dynamics and punch to be so when appropriate - the shootout in the bathroom in "True Lies" for example.)

Phil

To re-emphasise my points, my surround system worked extremely well despite using non-Naim surround speakers and sub, and despite not having a centre speaker. It's performance was not an issue. The issue was that I found surround sound to be eventually distracting whether it was crash-bang-wallop effects or subltle atmospheric effects. To me it is superfluous to requirements and nothing but a gimmick - like 3D. If you enjoy hearing subtle ambient effects coming from all around you then fine. I prefer the sound field to occupy the same space as the image it is associated with.

Peter

It's just too much trouble and expense to "do" a 5.1 or more system. Given the amount of movies we watch, optical audio from Sky+ or BRP via Netgear giga switch in to pre amp does very well thank you.

We had an Arcam processor for the 3.1 parts it was such a faff to get anywhere near a decent balance it just wasn't worth it. If we had a separate  TV room maybe the all in one Sony type thingy I heard was very good and  might be the way to go, but 2 channel through the main rig works fine even if it hasn't  seismic  bass. Most  home movie systems I have heard sound so unrealistic it just ain't  for me.

I have no idea what a superb surri\ound system in a dedicated room of proper acoustics might sound like, but since I am a person of somewhat limited means, my preference for music over movies would dictate that I spend the money there.  Who knows--if I were wealthy enough, I might become a surround sound junkie.

Russ

Yep,

But I've just finished ripping my Game of Thrones Series 1 DVDs, inc 5.1, and think I will turn on all the gear for these.

M

That's a made-for-TV movie Mr U, so that's OK. (currently reading all seven books in the series)

If you enjoy going to the cinema and feel the surround sound system enhances the movie experience, then it's possible to recreate, indeed improve, on the effect at home, but it's certainly not easy or cheap and I fully understand why most folks don't want to go to those lengths in their own homes. You've got to be a real movie junkie to do it. 

My 55-inch TV is not exactly small but when used with a 2-channel hi-fi system or surround system the sound dwarfs the visual. To me, the TV's built-in speakers produce sound in the correct proportion. I will consider proper surround audio only if I have a projection system with a 100-inch screen.

This is a valid point. If your hi-fi system produces a big expansive sound then it can indeed seem to be totally out of proportion to the images on a "normal" sized TV, and somewhat detached from them as a result. The surround system that we used when we had a projector would have been rediculous used with our current 26" TV. Our hi-fi now sounds rather small as we use Eclipse TD307MkII speakers so it is in good proportion to the TV.

Peter

....I'd agree, but I'm not sure that 55" counts as 'normal'.

Personally I would love to use a projector, but not having a dedicated AV room I had to go the TV route for practical reasons.

I use a Phillips 21:9 widescreen, which is about 55", and don't feel it is overpowered by the HiFi.

M

Just from a personal perspective, I prefer the idea of keeping my hifi seperate, with no additional connections. A bit of a purist I suppose.

Also like the idea that when I go into the music room, there are no other distractions.