Home theatre - do you really need a sub?

Basically, yes, you are way off track!

If you want proper Home Cinema sound then a sub's essential to fully reproduce the Low Frequency effects channel that's produced in 5.1 surround sound.

Similarly, the idea of having something "Small, cheap" for the surround speakers isn't good enough if you want a reasonable quality Home Cinema.

Many folks on here use basic surround sound setups without subs, which is OK, but in no way is it equivalent to a properly set up multispeaker system that works properly with multichannel encoded content.

Well that's another question. I rarely watch DVDs so the 5.1 set up would basically be for TV and the small number of 5.1 encoded music CDs I have. Is there any point running a TV through a 5.1 system?

I find that a 2 channel system works for me, I watch a lot of movies and music DVDs and have never missed the effects that surround produce. I feel that the cost to employ a processor and speakers and amps just isn't worth it to me.

quote:

Originally posted by jcs_smith:
Well that's another question. I rarely watch DVDs so the 5.1 set up would basically be for TV and the small number of 5.1 encoded music CDs I have. Is there any point running a TV through a 5.1 system?

In that case, probably not. Might be worth using the SBLs in stereo mode with a reasonable amp. for TV though. They'll be hugely better than the TV's own speakers and amp!

quote:

I find that a 2 channel system works for me, I watch a lot of movies and music DVDs and have never missed the effects that surround produce. I feel that the cost to employ a processor and speakers and amps just isn't worth it to me.

OK Vaughn, that's your decision, but if you like movies & music concert DVDs you're seriously missing out on, to me, the main attraction.

Have you tried a properly set up, good quality surround system in your home I wonder?

Hi Tony, no I havent tried one in my home but my best friend has a respectable Adcom 5.1 system which I have used many times...it didn't do much for me. Maybe one of these days I should pay a visit to a dealer and try an n-vi with an open mind.

quote:

Originally posted by jcs_smith:
Well that's another question. I rarely watch DVDs so the 5.1 set up would basically be for TV and the small number of 5.1 encoded music CDs I have. Is there any point running a TV through a 5.1 system?

I added surround sound (without a sub) to my naim system about ten years ago, used with just my TV and VCR. It sounded fairly crude, my wife hated it and within a fairly short period of time it was in the loft back in boxes!

I'm only now about to have another go but I'm keeping it well away from my stereo and getting a dedicated AV set up. For it to sound right I think you need matched speakers front and rear and a good sub.

If you're not into DVD/Blu-ray then I'd say just feed sound from your TV into your Naim, you'll be blown away with the improvement!

quote:

Originally posted by jcs_smith:
Is it really necessary to have a sub-woofer.

If you are going to go some way toward 5.1 then I find the rear channels the least necessary -- but nice to have all the same.

http://forums.naim-audio.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4801938...492931217#5492931217 gives my views on the "need" for a sub.

Quite agree Adam, a very good argument in favour of subs.

If you are going to go some way toward 5.1 then I find the rear channels the most necessary, and the centre the least necessary...

I disagree–a good 3.1 setup (L C R + LFE) is fantastic if video is a primary source, surrounds less necessary in a small room.

The front width more than compensates for the lack of surrounds, though I will concede that 1) I currently use a 5.1 system and 2) I ran the surrounds unconnected in the 3.1 setup to avoid any mixdown level issues....

I wholeheartedly agree the Centre is pretty essential really. It's the dialogue speaker & a good one makes all the difference.

I realise many folk on here have added various speaker combinations and types to their Hi-Fi system in an attempt to reproduce surround sound and they seem content with what they're hearing.

Good luck to them. I've got a good friend who really likes his Bose stereo & can't understand why I would want all those black boxes cluttering the place up. No matter how you cut it, you won't achieve a proper high-quality home surround sound system unless you get five (or seven) matching speakers and a good subwoofer, plus a decent surround sound decoder and amplification.

Being "Naimites" we all recognise the importance of good quality equipment, properly set up. Why should multichannel audio be any different?

I have CDS3/252/olive250 /IBL's as my main system with DVD5/AV2/140/Castle AV sub/Castle AV rear satellites. No centre speaker, basically because no room for one and it would be difficult (impossible?) to integrate one well with the IBL's. Before I got the surround set-up I just used the DVD5 straight into the 252. I made the following observations on changing to surround:

1. 5.1 DVD soundtracks down-mixed to 2 channel were totally unsatisfactory using the DVD5 without the AV2.

2. The rear channels turned out to be less important than I had imagined. Many 5.1 soundtracks (especially those on older movies which have been re-mixed to 5.1) seem to make little use of them.

3. The sub is not just about deep bass but gives a general 'beefing up' of the sound which just makes things sound more real.

4. Dialogue is sometimes not as clear as I would ideally like on 5.1 mixes with a lot going on. I suspect a centre channel would help here.

A lot of my movies are 1960's or '70's movies with 2 channel sound. Obviously they only make use of the IBL's and I don't feel that the experience greatly suffers as a result. I think the main thing with home cinema is to get the largest screen size you possibly can afford/accommodate, and use a projector if possible. This really does immerse you in the action in a way that cannot be achieved with more coventional domestic displays.
Peter

My opinion is either do it, or don't do it. There is no point pissing around doing it half arsed.

If you don't actually watch DVDs, the question is why do you want five point one?

Basic misuderstanding of the situation. I wasn't sure whether or not TV would come out througfh the speakers. Also all the new Fax releases come as a 2 disk set, 1 that's stereo and 1 that's 5.1. I'm curious as to what they sound like.

The way I look at it is simple. If you are using a multichannel decoder/AV receiver then some of the low frequencies are going to be exclusive for the 0.1 channel (subwoofer). If you don't have a subwoofer then you won't be reproducing those frequencies. Some AV receivers will have the ability to downmix a 5.1 to a simple 5 channel setup but some others can't. My NAD can't do that and without a subwoofer I'll have a good bit of low frequency information omitted from reproduction. I want to hear all that is on the DVD and IMHO I think a sub adds so much more to the movie experience. Enjoy

An interesting selection of opinions so far. In fact I recently got a n-VI and auditioned a lot of different speakers and combinations with / without sub with my very patient dealer. In the end my ears preferred the system without a sub, but I think it would depend on your set-up and what you mainly use it for ( I concentrated on music rather than films ... but I am very happy with the performance with films aswell). If possible I would go down to your dealers listening room and try out some combinations to see what suits you best. What is certainly important is that the speakers all work well together and you'll certainly need the centre speaker.

Need or Use???

For myself, the sub will be the last speaker I purchase, as I reckon the 250/Allae's do pretty good by themselves.
Main reason is basically the 5k needed for an n-sub would be put to better use on 2-channel.