HiFi sound v's Movie sound
Posted by: Johns Naim on 27 February 2004
Greetings All
Now this is one for the growing list of members amongst us all, who have taken either tentative, or full blown steps into the world of Home Theatre, either as a separate system to their 2 channel HiFi, or as some others have done, to integrate multi-channel Home Theatre with their existing 2 channel setup.
As some of you will know, I am one of the latter, having integrated some Sony ES series HT gear into my Naim 2 channel system.
Recently, I had to replace some old rear surround speakers with some new/better ones, aka a pair of Tannoys, which has improved the HT sound out of sight, and thus as they have now run in, I've been doing a lot more playing around with various sound 'modes' re surround, and thinking a great deal more about differences between HiFi sound, and HT sound, as I'm rapidly coming to a conclusion that they are two very different animals indeed.
To me, the reproduction of music in the home, is never going to be as 'realistic' as a live performance, in that the acoustics are just so different between the average home, and whatever studio or live venue where a recording takes place.
However, a very good system, such as the Naim, gives a wonderfully involving and rewarding sense of the music, as against 'musical occasion' via the detail in any sound (fullness, or rightness of timbre if you like) and the dynamics, both major and minor, that form the substance of music in terms of emotional involvement and expression.
On the other hand, movie sound, forgetting for the sake of argument that it uses lossy compression algorithmns and is made up mainly of dialogue, sound effects, and some music, conveys much of the sense of involvement and 'being there' by virtue of the soundfield created by a multi- speaker array.
Achieving the best soundfield is quite an exercise, needing matched speakers and amps all round if possible, with careful positioning, and attention to time delays etc to achieve the desired sense of a seamless soundfield surrounding the listner/movie viewer.
I notice that there is something of a distinct difference in approach to multi-channel movie sound between 'majors' such as Yamaha and Sony, and other players at that level, excluding perhaps'high end' products such as lexicon, in that they use proprietary algorithmns to 'alter' the sound so as to create a more enveloping and ambient detail rich soundfield.
In 2 channel terms, this playing with the signal via DSP, is anaethema to a purist music lover, and I for one would mostly eschew such devices, however I'm having a bit of a rethink, and am wondering as to others views and experiences/experiments etc.
In 2 channel music terms, if one wanted the most 'accurate' sound, then I guess we would want to eliminate the influence of the room, and listen through high quality headphones, but not many of us like protracted listening in the 'near field' as it were, and prefer the experience of music listening with speakers in a room, accepting the slight colouration/alteration of the signal this must bring, on the grounds that it sounds more 'realistic'
Translating this to multi-channel movie sound, I at times find the 'pure' sound of unadulterated 5.1, or 6.1 DD or DTS movies, to be somewhat 'dry' in that one can clearly hear left, center, right, and right and left rear etc, but almost as if it is just an extension of 2 channel - the effect being of listening to a movie in the 'near field' - very accurate re giving you what there is on the disc, but not realistic as in giving you that detail rich, enveloping surround sound field as experienced in a movie theatre.
Here, 7.1 definitely improves things, but of late I've been experimenting with the DSP settings on the Sony, and have also heard some Yamaha equipment as well, and have to say that the results aren't as accurate, in so far as if you were listening to the sound alone, that one would/does notice a slight softening of centre focus, as the image width widens to blend with the fronts more, and a slight slowing of transient attack and leading edge detail. Which is to be expected when one starts to manipulate the signal, adding subtle reverb, phase and timing delays etc.
BUT, used in this way, whilst not as 'accurate' per se, in the sense of being more 'realistic' and most especially being more involving, exciting and dramatic, I've been hearing some of the best HT 'sound' I've ever experienced IMHO. Importantly, I've found that when watching the picture, and not trying to much to carefully listen/analyse the sound, and just let the total movie/sound experience wash over one, the extra sense of realism and involvement the much larger, and more cohesive soundfield brings is hard to deny, and it's hard to go back to what one previously thought was the most 'pure', or accurate sound, and therefore automatically assumed it to be the 'best'
To be honest, I'd describe myself as being a bit of a 2 channel purist, in that I am anti - tone controls, loudness filters, graphic equalisers and such, yet, for movie use, the sort of signal manipulation re DSP souondfields as I've been discussing enhances the overall movie experience in ways I'd never imagined.
The extra level of subtlitie and nuance in low level scenes is astonishing - I'm hearing things in movie soundtracks effect wise I've never heard before, and flyovers, flyarounds etc or large scale effects become just that - filling the room with sound that is so much more realistic than 'pure' DD or DTS, if the measure of realism is recreating the movie watching experience as one experiences it in a commercial cinema, which is after all what one could rightly argue to be the 'reference'.
Heheh, am I developing an illness here? - being seduced by surround sound 'gimmicks'? - whatever it is, the emotional/involvement meter seems to go off the scale as I find myself ceasing to breath, getting excited/frightened etc, and generally much more involved with the movies, much in the way I do with good music through my 2 channel setup.
I'm quite surprised to be frank, as I did some experimenting, and listened to the Yamaha gear as well, as a bit of an experiment, and have been quite astonished at the results.
I note that of the high-end manufacturers, Lexicon have some proprietary DSP software to enhance the surround etc, but of the mainstream makers, Yamaha and Sony seem to have a bit of a corner on this sort of thing with their proprietary chips and codecs etc. Interestingly, having done some research on the net for more of how this stuff works, I see that in Sony's case, it very much has drifted down from their professional mixing desks etc, into their consumer products. Maybe owning a few movie studios, and having their own digital sound system (SDDS) has taught them a thing or two, or perhaps given them a few secrets that others can't, of don't for what ever reason choose to use.
So, sorry about the long post, but this is all a bit of a new and exciting journey of discovery in HT sound for me, but importantly, what do you think?
I'd love to hear some others views and experiences.
Regards to All
John...
Populist thinking exalts the simplistic and the ordinary
Now this is one for the growing list of members amongst us all, who have taken either tentative, or full blown steps into the world of Home Theatre, either as a separate system to their 2 channel HiFi, or as some others have done, to integrate multi-channel Home Theatre with their existing 2 channel setup.
As some of you will know, I am one of the latter, having integrated some Sony ES series HT gear into my Naim 2 channel system.
Recently, I had to replace some old rear surround speakers with some new/better ones, aka a pair of Tannoys, which has improved the HT sound out of sight, and thus as they have now run in, I've been doing a lot more playing around with various sound 'modes' re surround, and thinking a great deal more about differences between HiFi sound, and HT sound, as I'm rapidly coming to a conclusion that they are two very different animals indeed.
To me, the reproduction of music in the home, is never going to be as 'realistic' as a live performance, in that the acoustics are just so different between the average home, and whatever studio or live venue where a recording takes place.
However, a very good system, such as the Naim, gives a wonderfully involving and rewarding sense of the music, as against 'musical occasion' via the detail in any sound (fullness, or rightness of timbre if you like) and the dynamics, both major and minor, that form the substance of music in terms of emotional involvement and expression.
On the other hand, movie sound, forgetting for the sake of argument that it uses lossy compression algorithmns and is made up mainly of dialogue, sound effects, and some music, conveys much of the sense of involvement and 'being there' by virtue of the soundfield created by a multi- speaker array.
Achieving the best soundfield is quite an exercise, needing matched speakers and amps all round if possible, with careful positioning, and attention to time delays etc to achieve the desired sense of a seamless soundfield surrounding the listner/movie viewer.
I notice that there is something of a distinct difference in approach to multi-channel movie sound between 'majors' such as Yamaha and Sony, and other players at that level, excluding perhaps'high end' products such as lexicon, in that they use proprietary algorithmns to 'alter' the sound so as to create a more enveloping and ambient detail rich soundfield.
In 2 channel terms, this playing with the signal via DSP, is anaethema to a purist music lover, and I for one would mostly eschew such devices, however I'm having a bit of a rethink, and am wondering as to others views and experiences/experiments etc.
In 2 channel music terms, if one wanted the most 'accurate' sound, then I guess we would want to eliminate the influence of the room, and listen through high quality headphones, but not many of us like protracted listening in the 'near field' as it were, and prefer the experience of music listening with speakers in a room, accepting the slight colouration/alteration of the signal this must bring, on the grounds that it sounds more 'realistic'
Translating this to multi-channel movie sound, I at times find the 'pure' sound of unadulterated 5.1, or 6.1 DD or DTS movies, to be somewhat 'dry' in that one can clearly hear left, center, right, and right and left rear etc, but almost as if it is just an extension of 2 channel - the effect being of listening to a movie in the 'near field' - very accurate re giving you what there is on the disc, but not realistic as in giving you that detail rich, enveloping surround sound field as experienced in a movie theatre.
Here, 7.1 definitely improves things, but of late I've been experimenting with the DSP settings on the Sony, and have also heard some Yamaha equipment as well, and have to say that the results aren't as accurate, in so far as if you were listening to the sound alone, that one would/does notice a slight softening of centre focus, as the image width widens to blend with the fronts more, and a slight slowing of transient attack and leading edge detail. Which is to be expected when one starts to manipulate the signal, adding subtle reverb, phase and timing delays etc.
BUT, used in this way, whilst not as 'accurate' per se, in the sense of being more 'realistic' and most especially being more involving, exciting and dramatic, I've been hearing some of the best HT 'sound' I've ever experienced IMHO. Importantly, I've found that when watching the picture, and not trying to much to carefully listen/analyse the sound, and just let the total movie/sound experience wash over one, the extra sense of realism and involvement the much larger, and more cohesive soundfield brings is hard to deny, and it's hard to go back to what one previously thought was the most 'pure', or accurate sound, and therefore automatically assumed it to be the 'best'
To be honest, I'd describe myself as being a bit of a 2 channel purist, in that I am anti - tone controls, loudness filters, graphic equalisers and such, yet, for movie use, the sort of signal manipulation re DSP souondfields as I've been discussing enhances the overall movie experience in ways I'd never imagined.
The extra level of subtlitie and nuance in low level scenes is astonishing - I'm hearing things in movie soundtracks effect wise I've never heard before, and flyovers, flyarounds etc or large scale effects become just that - filling the room with sound that is so much more realistic than 'pure' DD or DTS, if the measure of realism is recreating the movie watching experience as one experiences it in a commercial cinema, which is after all what one could rightly argue to be the 'reference'.
Heheh, am I developing an illness here? - being seduced by surround sound 'gimmicks'? - whatever it is, the emotional/involvement meter seems to go off the scale as I find myself ceasing to breath, getting excited/frightened etc, and generally much more involved with the movies, much in the way I do with good music through my 2 channel setup.
I'm quite surprised to be frank, as I did some experimenting, and listened to the Yamaha gear as well, as a bit of an experiment, and have been quite astonished at the results.
I note that of the high-end manufacturers, Lexicon have some proprietary DSP software to enhance the surround etc, but of the mainstream makers, Yamaha and Sony seem to have a bit of a corner on this sort of thing with their proprietary chips and codecs etc. Interestingly, having done some research on the net for more of how this stuff works, I see that in Sony's case, it very much has drifted down from their professional mixing desks etc, into their consumer products. Maybe owning a few movie studios, and having their own digital sound system (SDDS) has taught them a thing or two, or perhaps given them a few secrets that others can't, of don't for what ever reason choose to use.
So, sorry about the long post, but this is all a bit of a new and exciting journey of discovery in HT sound for me, but importantly, what do you think?
I'd love to hear some others views and experiences.
Regards to All
John...
Populist thinking exalts the simplistic and the ordinary
younaimit said
I would agree for music, yes, but for 5.1 movies of DVD, no. Before I got the AV processor etc, I ran the output from my DVD player via the anaalogue outputs direct to my 72; hence straight stereo across the front. As you say, it is mixed down 5.1, in that the player downmixes the 5.1 soundtrack to 2 channel DPL compatable analogue stereo. The trouble is, it also compresses the sound quite significantly re dynamics, and causes loss of detail as well because of the summming of the channels in the downmixing process.
Using a digital decoder, and running surrounds gave a much better sound overall IMHO, notwithstanding the surround 'effects' - there was just so much more detail, and dynamic slam on offer. The only exception I found, was when one had one of those rare DVD's that had a dolby stereo 2.0 soundtrack on it in addition to the 5.1. Then, using the 2.0 soundtrack gave results equal to the 5.1 track re detail and dynamics, but without the rear surrounds - quite acceptable in my view, however such discs are few and far between, which means that in the majority of cases one is missing out on detail and dynamics unfortunately by the mixdown process.
Best
John...
Populist thinking exalts the simplistic and the ordinary
quote:
But for now I love DVD movies and concerts in mixed down stereo up front.
I would agree for music, yes, but for 5.1 movies of DVD, no. Before I got the AV processor etc, I ran the output from my DVD player via the anaalogue outputs direct to my 72; hence straight stereo across the front. As you say, it is mixed down 5.1, in that the player downmixes the 5.1 soundtrack to 2 channel DPL compatable analogue stereo. The trouble is, it also compresses the sound quite significantly re dynamics, and causes loss of detail as well because of the summming of the channels in the downmixing process.
Using a digital decoder, and running surrounds gave a much better sound overall IMHO, notwithstanding the surround 'effects' - there was just so much more detail, and dynamic slam on offer. The only exception I found, was when one had one of those rare DVD's that had a dolby stereo 2.0 soundtrack on it in addition to the 5.1. Then, using the 2.0 soundtrack gave results equal to the 5.1 track re detail and dynamics, but without the rear surrounds - quite acceptable in my view, however such discs are few and far between, which means that in the majority of cases one is missing out on detail and dynamics unfortunately by the mixdown process.
Best
John...
Populist thinking exalts the simplistic and the ordinary
blythe said;
I agree entirely, and as a side note, it makes the obsession some so called golden eared audiophiles seem to have with precsion sound staging and imaging a little trite when one compares it to 'reference' and to music as a whole IMHO.
As regards movies, I would also suggest that perhaps whilst 'straight' 5.1 is more accurate re what is on the DVD, it again is not necessarily as 'realistic' as a live 'source', in this case a movie theatre. Hence where the sound field DSP enhancments available start to make sense IMHO in creating a more 'realistic' sense of the movie experience, just as loudspeakers do for music over a pair of headphones re 'accuracy' v's 'realism' as you point out.
Best
John...
Populist thinking exalts the simplistic and the ordinary
quote:
OK, it's accurate maybe compared to a CD, but NOT accurate to an original, live, source.
The "stereo" also seems totally artificial - sit more than 4 rows back at a concert and "stereo" effects virtually dissappear.
At a concert, you get a nice spread of sound but you cannot tell where a particular instrument is. Headphones artificially recreate a false soundstage.
They can however, sound great - but not real.
I agree entirely, and as a side note, it makes the obsession some so called golden eared audiophiles seem to have with precsion sound staging and imaging a little trite when one compares it to 'reference' and to music as a whole IMHO.
As regards movies, I would also suggest that perhaps whilst 'straight' 5.1 is more accurate re what is on the DVD, it again is not necessarily as 'realistic' as a live 'source', in this case a movie theatre. Hence where the sound field DSP enhancments available start to make sense IMHO in creating a more 'realistic' sense of the movie experience, just as loudspeakers do for music over a pair of headphones re 'accuracy' v's 'realism' as you point out.
Best
John...
Populist thinking exalts the simplistic and the ordinary
I hardly ever use my TV speakers and always have my satellite TV receiver feeding my 72/180 and Mission 753F's as the main sound source for TV (except on the news).
I find it adds enormously to the pleasure of watching TV (and VHS) films having decent (stereo) sound.
I am not particularly interested in AV because of the sheer cost of obtaining similar sound quality to that I already have in stereo only. Though a demo at a local hifi show of the Matrix on a big plasma screen and a full (and costly) multi-channel set-up driving umpteen speakers was an absolute revelation. I was grinning like an ape.
Nime
Everyone has the right to be wrong.
I find it adds enormously to the pleasure of watching TV (and VHS) films having decent (stereo) sound.
I am not particularly interested in AV because of the sheer cost of obtaining similar sound quality to that I already have in stereo only. Though a demo at a local hifi show of the Matrix on a big plasma screen and a full (and costly) multi-channel set-up driving umpteen speakers was an absolute revelation. I was grinning like an ape.
Nime
Everyone has the right to be wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Sukebe:
Interesting how different people have different priorities.
I've spent the last 7 or 8 years building up a home theatre set of kit that was integrated with my stereo, before this year, completely pulling it apart.
I initially started by adding a dolby pro-logic processor and some old speakers for the rears, upgrading both the stereo (to naim/linn gear) and the home theatre kit (with some linn, much higher quality speakers, pro-logic 2 capable processor etc).
Then one day, someone said "try listening to your stereo without a TV in between the speakers". Just for a laugh, had a go. I couldn't believe the improvement. It was massive, so much so that whilst the two sets of kit are still in the same room, they're now on perpendicular walls to each other. Of course that resulted in me losing the main front stereo speakers from the av kit. What surprised me was that I really didn't care.
It's got to the point where my missus asked me to get rid of the "big ugly black speakers" that I'd put in place on the front of the AV system. These were duly swapped for a pair of cheapo Mordaunt shorts (cos they look nice to she who must be obeyed), and I still didn't care.
So in effect I've gone from a using two pairs of effects speakers with a combined cost of about £2500 to a single pair of effect speakers with a cost of £150 (that's before you add in the cost of the Naim amplification).
Frankly, the only thing that might sway me from my indifference to the AV side of things is the purchase of a projector or plasma, which might eliminate my intollerance for having a TV screen between my main speakers, and allow me to re-use the naim kit again.
Guess I'm just becoming a little weird.
Hy Mr.Sukebe!
I had for two years a rear projection tv from
toshiba between my speakers.I had the same experience,it destroyd natural stereo image completley.This toshiba was only 40 cm deep
and stood close to the front wall of my
listening room.
now i try to decide between a plasma and a dlp
beamer.
A plasma is only 10 cm deep but maybe it will
reflect sound similar to a glass wall or a
window (anybody tried?)
Buying this thing only to watch Movies
I think i will go for the beamer.(i dont need Teletext and i am no channel hopper)
Sound wise for me it seemed always the best
solution to have a cheap dolby digital amplifier with front pre outs and a good stereopreamp including Bypassconnects,so the
processor will be always out of the circuit
hearing stereo cd or phono.As i understand
nait 5i with its unitygain function will be also perfect for this use.
Not sur if i am right but i suppose multi channel cinema started out of the reason that
in a big cinema room there are a lot of different listener places therfore lukas created a special software (5.1 or something
similar) and a processor and a multi channel
speaker system.
Having only one perfect listener place it is theoretically possible to get nearby the same
effect out of two loudspeakers and without
processor,If the room is normed and all sound
informations are given by Phase shifts on the cd during the recording process.
but of course a good processor has the ability to correct the physical weakness of big
subwoofers to be a lot slower than a normal woofers (a kind of active crossover)
and we have to create our homecinemas on the
basement of the given software(5.1 or 7.1,dolby
digtal or dts or whatever industry creates)
O.J.
Hi All,
Hey, some great posts here re experiences and ideas,, please keep them coming..
Today I had a somewhat disturbing experience, of the upsetting kind.
I went to a local chain department store, and had a listen to the Tannoy family of speakers, of which my newly purchased rears are a part, driven by a mid-level Yamaha AV receiver, and DVD player.
This was comprised of the floor standing towers, the Mercury mX4's, and the matching center, sub and rears (mx2's which I'm also using with my SBL's)
Shock, horror, this to my ears, sounded better than what I'm getting at home soundwise; given that I'm using SBL's for the front, driven by a 72/hicap/180, and a high end Sony amp driving the little Tannoy mx2's at the rear, this was, er, something of an Ooh-err! moment
When I say 'better', on music, no way, indeed I listened to the fronts on music, and they were pleasant enough, excellent value for money for a 'budget' speaker, very transparent midrange, lovely open sound, but a bit plodding and boomy in the bass. But as a matched set on demo movies - WOW!
The sound was warm and rich without being muddy; clear and open without being over-bright or fatiguing, with dynamics that went from a subtle tinkle, to a roar at the toss of a hat, and a sense of coherence in the soundfield re no obvious speaker, that was IMHO amongst some of the best surround sound that I've heard.
Thinking of it as 'movie sound' and a total movie 'experience, as against just 'music sound' it was at once enjoyable, fun, and addictive, with a very involving and attention grabbing sound/picture experience. No doubt, if one turned the picture OFF, and just listened to the sound, in the focused way that one does with stereo/music, I would easily be able to start to pick holes in things, but as a total movie/sound experience it was quite superb, and I found it one of the most enjoyable demos of such gear I've had, REGARDLESS of cost.
I cannot but help after this demo which quite blew me away, but get the rather uncomfortable feeling that REALLY high-end AV, is perhaps a bit of a waste of resources for movie use alone, if the premise is that one needs amps and speakers that are of a standard one is used to, or owns, re 2 channel stereo.
If MUSIC goes multichannel eventually, re SACD, or perhaps DVD-Audio, then IMHO such an investment and quality level of equipment makes sense (for eg AV2, Access, Intros at the rear to compliment SBL's up front in my case), or perhaps if we were talking high resolution uncompressed multi-channel movie sound, which will most likely happen at some stage in the future, along with HD picture no doubt, then yes, one would arguably get the benfit from the extra quality perhaps.
However, the future is always a cystal ball, and there is no guarantee that music will go multichannel surround. As things stand, with lossy compression re movies, and the fact that the 'sound' is a mix of dialogue, foley effects, and some music, interrupted/distracted from by that annoyance called the picture I'm really beginnning to feel that the subtlities of what something like an 72/180/SBL combo can bring to music, doesn't mean an awful lot in the movie sound context.
If anything, their back to the wall placement, which gives superb bass linearity and articulation, at the cost of some openess re the soundstage, which is arguably of only moderate interest in music, re it's presentation, is conversely a rather limiting factor re their suitability for HT. In terms of a huge soundstage across the front, as in a DD soundfield, the Tannoys would easily blow the SBL's away IMHO. That's not to say they are a better speaker, no way, not in a month of sundays, however, for AV movie sound, they were the better or perhaps more suitable speaker IMV.
As things stand, I'm very impressed with the results I've been getting, venturing into AV as I am, with the add-on to my Naim 2 channel setup as it were, and have been entertaining thoughts of an Acess, then Intros, or perhaps the Arrivas when they Arive (pun intended) and Naim or REL sub.
Three things are making me have second thoughts. First, having heard an AV2/175 setup, and considering it to be the best AV processor I've heard, re things like detail in a sound, separation between sounds such that one could either listen to the whole, or the individual parts, put it amongst the finest I've ever heard, plus all the other Naim strengths such as dynamics,timing, rythmn etc. BUT, and it was a big but, in the prescence of the picture, I was quite dissapointed to find that it did not significantly add to the overall movie involvement experience to a significant extent that was commensurate with the difference in price between it and lower (much) priced 'mainstream' options.
Second, for movie use only, to build on my 2 channel re center speaker, rears, and sub, and to have it all matching the quality of the SBL's would keep me rather poor for the next year or two, as I would effectively need to double what I've already got invested, and frankly, for JUST movie use, I'm feeling increasingly less than convinced that it is necessary. As I said earlier, if music goes multichannel as well, then that may be another story.
Third and last, in all honesty, I can say, at the risk of being a heretic, (and getting burnt alive) that I personally enjoyed the Yamaha/Tannoy setup today, far more from an involvement factor than I did the AV2/175/Ruark combo that I heard some time back. The fact that it cost many, many thousands less, is just icing on a very tasty cake.
Now, I realise I've just made something of a 'statement' here, and recognise that mood, room, setup etc can all come into this, and in no way mean to either make or insinuate disparaging comments re AV2/175 owners, and hope I have no need of a flame suit.
Without doubt, if money didn't come into it, I'd have an AV2, and almost certainly would want to do 7.1 with it, as without the DSP soundfield enhancement that the likes of Sony, Yamaha, Lexicon etc offer, having mutiple speaker arrays would be the only way to get a similar desired wrap-around sound field IMV, as 'vanilla' 5.1 doesn't quite cut it as well as 7.1 in that regard to the best of my knowledge (not having heard a well set up 7.1 system).
And in that sort of setup, then, I should imagine that the extra realism and detail etc on offer, would start to come into it's own. However, the little Yamaha/Tannoy setup, whilst nowhere near as detailed and clear as an AV2, in a 'traditional' hifi/music sense, had a sense of wrap, and beguiling detail in the soundfield (note, soundfield, not a particular speaker) such that I was really very taken with it re involvement and enjoyment in a way that the AV2 demo/setup that I heard sometime ago did not appear to at the time I heard it, unfortunately.
Even though it (AV2/175/Ruarks) was more detailed, it did not have that enveloping sense of wrap, which I'm coming to the conclusion is perhaps the most important, or at least one of the main foundations of surround sound movie involvement. As against the rather different requirements for 2 channel music listening.
So,,, what to do,,, well, I'm having thoughts about whether it might be worthwhile separating the two systems, rather than trying to tie in the Sony etc with the Naim and all the associated expense re getting matched naim speakers and amps all round, and instead go for something like a matched set of Tannoys, or similar, and pair them with the Sony/AV side of it alone.
As a final thought, for those who have ventured into combining the two, i.e. their existing Naim 2channel plus adding on AV, if it was a question of having the room, would you still do this, or would you run a totally separate AV system?
Just a thought
Warmest regards to all
John...
Populist thinking exalts the simplistic and the ordinary
[This message was edited by Johns Naim on TUESDAY 02 March 2004 at 09:59.]
Hey, some great posts here re experiences and ideas,, please keep them coming..
Today I had a somewhat disturbing experience, of the upsetting kind.
I went to a local chain department store, and had a listen to the Tannoy family of speakers, of which my newly purchased rears are a part, driven by a mid-level Yamaha AV receiver, and DVD player.
This was comprised of the floor standing towers, the Mercury mX4's, and the matching center, sub and rears (mx2's which I'm also using with my SBL's)
Shock, horror, this to my ears, sounded better than what I'm getting at home soundwise; given that I'm using SBL's for the front, driven by a 72/hicap/180, and a high end Sony amp driving the little Tannoy mx2's at the rear, this was, er, something of an Ooh-err! moment
When I say 'better', on music, no way, indeed I listened to the fronts on music, and they were pleasant enough, excellent value for money for a 'budget' speaker, very transparent midrange, lovely open sound, but a bit plodding and boomy in the bass. But as a matched set on demo movies - WOW!
The sound was warm and rich without being muddy; clear and open without being over-bright or fatiguing, with dynamics that went from a subtle tinkle, to a roar at the toss of a hat, and a sense of coherence in the soundfield re no obvious speaker, that was IMHO amongst some of the best surround sound that I've heard.
Thinking of it as 'movie sound' and a total movie 'experience, as against just 'music sound' it was at once enjoyable, fun, and addictive, with a very involving and attention grabbing sound/picture experience. No doubt, if one turned the picture OFF, and just listened to the sound, in the focused way that one does with stereo/music, I would easily be able to start to pick holes in things, but as a total movie/sound experience it was quite superb, and I found it one of the most enjoyable demos of such gear I've had, REGARDLESS of cost.
I cannot but help after this demo which quite blew me away, but get the rather uncomfortable feeling that REALLY high-end AV, is perhaps a bit of a waste of resources for movie use alone, if the premise is that one needs amps and speakers that are of a standard one is used to, or owns, re 2 channel stereo.
If MUSIC goes multichannel eventually, re SACD, or perhaps DVD-Audio, then IMHO such an investment and quality level of equipment makes sense (for eg AV2, Access, Intros at the rear to compliment SBL's up front in my case), or perhaps if we were talking high resolution uncompressed multi-channel movie sound, which will most likely happen at some stage in the future, along with HD picture no doubt, then yes, one would arguably get the benfit from the extra quality perhaps.
However, the future is always a cystal ball, and there is no guarantee that music will go multichannel surround. As things stand, with lossy compression re movies, and the fact that the 'sound' is a mix of dialogue, foley effects, and some music, interrupted/distracted from by that annoyance called the picture
I'm really beginnning to feel that the subtlities of what something like an 72/180/SBL combo can bring to music, doesn't mean an awful lot in the movie sound context. If anything, their back to the wall placement, which gives superb bass linearity and articulation, at the cost of some openess re the soundstage, which is arguably of only moderate interest in music, re it's presentation, is conversely a rather limiting factor re their suitability for HT. In terms of a huge soundstage across the front, as in a DD soundfield, the Tannoys would easily blow the SBL's away IMHO. That's not to say they are a better speaker, no way, not in a month of sundays, however, for AV movie sound, they were the better or perhaps more suitable speaker IMV.
As things stand, I'm very impressed with the results I've been getting, venturing into AV as I am, with the add-on to my Naim 2 channel setup as it were, and have been entertaining thoughts of an Acess, then Intros, or perhaps the Arrivas when they Arive (pun intended) and Naim or REL sub.
Three things are making me have second thoughts. First, having heard an AV2/175 setup, and considering it to be the best AV processor I've heard, re things like detail in a sound, separation between sounds such that one could either listen to the whole, or the individual parts, put it amongst the finest I've ever heard, plus all the other Naim strengths such as dynamics,timing, rythmn etc. BUT, and it was a big but, in the prescence of the picture, I was quite dissapointed to find that it did not significantly add to the overall movie involvement experience to a significant extent that was commensurate with the difference in price between it and lower (much) priced 'mainstream' options.
Second, for movie use only, to build on my 2 channel re center speaker, rears, and sub, and to have it all matching the quality of the SBL's would keep me rather poor for the next year or two, as I would effectively need to double what I've already got invested, and frankly, for JUST movie use, I'm feeling increasingly less than convinced that it is necessary. As I said earlier, if music goes multichannel as well, then that may be another story.
Third and last, in all honesty, I can say, at the risk of being a heretic, (and getting burnt alive
) that I personally enjoyed the Yamaha/Tannoy setup today, far more from an involvement factor than I did the AV2/175/Ruark combo that I heard some time back. The fact that it cost many, many thousands less, is just icing on a very tasty cake. Now, I realise I've just made something of a 'statement' here, and recognise that mood, room, setup etc can all come into this, and in no way mean to either make or insinuate disparaging comments re AV2/175 owners, and hope I have no need of a flame suit.
Without doubt, if money didn't come into it, I'd have an AV2, and almost certainly would want to do 7.1 with it, as without the DSP soundfield enhancement that the likes of Sony, Yamaha, Lexicon etc offer, having mutiple speaker arrays would be the only way to get a similar desired wrap-around sound field IMV, as 'vanilla' 5.1 doesn't quite cut it as well as 7.1 in that regard to the best of my knowledge (not having heard a well set up 7.1 system).
And in that sort of setup, then, I should imagine that the extra realism and detail etc on offer, would start to come into it's own. However, the little Yamaha/Tannoy setup, whilst nowhere near as detailed and clear as an AV2, in a 'traditional' hifi/music sense, had a sense of wrap, and beguiling detail in the soundfield (note, soundfield, not a particular speaker) such that I was really very taken with it re involvement and enjoyment in a way that the AV2 demo/setup that I heard sometime ago did not appear to at the time I heard it, unfortunately.
Even though it (AV2/175/Ruarks) was more detailed, it did not have that enveloping sense of wrap, which I'm coming to the conclusion is perhaps the most important, or at least one of the main foundations of surround sound movie involvement. As against the rather different requirements for 2 channel music listening.
So,,, what to do,,, well, I'm having thoughts about whether it might be worthwhile separating the two systems, rather than trying to tie in the Sony etc with the Naim and all the associated expense re getting matched naim speakers and amps all round, and instead go for something like a matched set of Tannoys, or similar, and pair them with the Sony/AV side of it alone.
As a final thought, for those who have ventured into combining the two, i.e. their existing Naim 2channel plus adding on AV, if it was a question of having the room, would you still do this, or would you run a totally separate AV system?
Just a thought
Warmest regards to all
John...
Populist thinking exalts the simplistic and the ordinary
[This message was edited by Johns Naim on TUESDAY 02 March 2004 at 09:59.]
quote:
So,,, what to do,,, well, I'm having thoughts about whether it might be worthwhile separating the two systems, rather than trying to tie in the Sony etc with the Naim and all the associated expense re getting matched naim speakers and amps all round, and instead go for something like a matched set of Tannoys, or similar, and pair them with the Sony/AV side of it alone.
Hi John
Can I just say firstly, that that's an extremely long post for someone reading it on a PDA
Very very interesting comments. I can't reply to much except that I do believe there to be siqnificant trade-offs with integratinq music and movie systems. Not sayinq it can't be done, just that it's "complicated".
The biqqest factor must surely be a hulking qreat TV between two speakers. A sure way to degrade a musical set-up. Doubly impacted with SBL'S that need to be hard against a wall!
I suspect that what you heard today is the result of a well set-up and synergistic system. At the risk of stating the obvious, sometimes it's not what you got, it's how you use it.
Jay
Yeah...well it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Greetings All
Andrew B said:
I very much agree, having set my sytem up to be as exact as possible using tape measure, test tones, and the Tandy/radio shack meter. Not sure if my Naim dealer went to the same trouble when they set up the AV2 for the audition I had of it, which perhaps could explain some of the slight dissapointment I felt re the soundfield 'wrap' I experienced.
Jay said:
Heh, guilty as charged Glad to hear that I haven't bored all and sundry though
I think you've hit the nail on the head in many ways, re some of the limitations I'm discovering re integrating gear set up for 2 channel and 'making' it work for HT.
When one has had considerable experience re 2 channel, it's very easy to make what I'm beginning to think is a bit of an erroneous perception to expect HT movie sound to be basically like 2 channel, but with more speakers.
In a sense, adding on to a music system, such as my Naim/SBL's, is basically doing just that. Fine in principle, but in other ways, what works superbly for music, is not necessarily the most ideal choice for HT I'm starting to think.
Surprisingly, in a music sense, re PRaT especially, the presence of a TV between my SBL's doesn't diminish their music making abilities to any significant degree, nor soundstage depth and separation between instruments, however, the width and height of the soundstage is quite shut in sounding, and truncated between just the speakers when the TV is there, but its a practical reality I have to live with unfortunately.
However, for movie sound, where the overall soundfield is such an intrinsic part of the overall experience, the limitations the TV brings to the SBL's abilities in that regard, compounded as you say by their back to the wall setup, is making me have something of a rethink as to their overall suitability for AV duties. And I'm also thinking, that in part, that is perhaps why when using DSP modes to enhance/broaden/open the soundstage, I've been noticing the improvements that I have.
PR said:
I agree, it's a bit like do you want to view, and hear the spaceship, or do you want to feel/imagine you are in it? - that pretty much sums up what I heard the Tannoys do, re that you are there feeling with the tremendous soundfield they created, v's the other more cerebral, less embracing feel I get with my current AV set up with the SBL's.
Mr_Sukebe said:
Most interesting to hear, and I'm fast coming to a similar conclusion, especially the way the Tannoy system I heard was so very, very good, for so little money.
It's certainly beginning to look that way for me.
Yes, if I knew for sure that music was going to go multi-channel SACD or whatever, then I can see some justification for high end processors, surround speakers etc for a combined one sytem music/HT role, but for movie surround alone, the priorities and needs are perhaps not so much 'lower' but very different IMHO.
With AV, like stereo, dynamics, detail, powerhandling, bandwidth etc still matter, but the other side of it for movies in particular, seems to be to have speakers as near as possibly matched all round, with a great ability to blend re polar response, off axis sound distribution etc. Methinks my SBL's have the former, but perhaps not so much of the later. Relatively inconsequential for music, but important for AV it appears to be turning out.
In contemplating much more expensive, high resolution, low coloration amps and speakers etc for JUST movie use, most of the advantages they would convey re what is important for stereo use, would most likely be largely negated by the presence/distraction of the picture, IMHO.
Anyway, I must try and stop being so loquacious, and get this posted!
Warmest Regards
John...
Populist thinking exalts the simplistic and the ordinary
Andrew B said:
quote:
I think that one very important element that hi-fi purists sometimes overlook is getting the relative speaker levels and delay settings balanced. This makes a huge difference to the "enveloping-ness" of the soundfield in my experience. It requires a tape measure, an SPL meter and a test DVD. If it is neglected, as I am sure it sometimes is by people in shops setting up lots of systems in less than perfect conditions, then the results are less than impressive.
I very much agree, having set my sytem up to be as exact as possible using tape measure, test tones, and the Tandy/radio shack meter. Not sure if my Naim dealer went to the same trouble when they set up the AV2 for the audition I had of it, which perhaps could explain some of the slight dissapointment I felt re the soundfield 'wrap' I experienced.
Jay said:
quote:
Can I just say firstly, that that's an extremely long post for someone reading it on a PDA
Heh, guilty as charged
Glad to hear that I haven't bored all and sundry though quote:
I do believe there to be siqnificant trade-offs with integratinq music and movie systems. Not sayinq it can't be done, just that it's "complicated".
The biqqest factor must surely be a hulking qreat TV between two speakers. A sure way to degrade a musical set-up. Doubly impacted with SBL'S that need to be hard against a wall!
I think you've hit the nail on the head in many ways, re some of the limitations I'm discovering re integrating gear set up for 2 channel and 'making' it work for HT.
When one has had considerable experience re 2 channel, it's very easy to make what I'm beginning to think is a bit of an erroneous perception to expect HT movie sound to be basically like 2 channel, but with more speakers.
In a sense, adding on to a music system, such as my Naim/SBL's, is basically doing just that. Fine in principle, but in other ways, what works superbly for music, is not necessarily the most ideal choice for HT I'm starting to think.
Surprisingly, in a music sense, re PRaT especially, the presence of a TV between my SBL's doesn't diminish their music making abilities to any significant degree, nor soundstage depth and separation between instruments, however, the width and height of the soundstage is quite shut in sounding, and truncated between just the speakers when the TV is there, but its a practical reality I have to live with unfortunately.
However, for movie sound, where the overall soundfield is such an intrinsic part of the overall experience, the limitations the TV brings to the SBL's abilities in that regard, compounded as you say by their back to the wall setup, is making me have something of a rethink as to their overall suitability for AV duties. And I'm also thinking, that in part, that is perhaps why when using DSP modes to enhance/broaden/open the soundstage, I've been noticing the improvements that I have.
PR said:
quote:
It's a case of whether you want to be a viewer or a participant?
I agree, it's a bit like do you want to view, and hear the spaceship, or do you want to feel/imagine you are in it? - that pretty much sums up what I heard the Tannoys do, re that you are there feeling with the tremendous soundfield they created, v's the other more cerebral, less embracing feel I get with my current AV set up with the SBL's.
Mr_Sukebe said:
quote:
It's only in the last couple of months that I've seperated out the stereo kit and yet feel that the AV side of things really hasn't been made appreciably worse despite the loss of several thousand pounds worth of kit from the setup.
So my own opinion is that it's worth throwing plenty of cash at the stereo side of things, and that a good screen DOES make a lot of difference to the enjoyment, but that the sound of AV really isn't that critical.
Most interesting to hear, and I'm fast coming to a similar conclusion, especially the way the Tannoy system I heard was so very, very good, for so little money.
quote:
Does this mean that the laws of depreciating returns is simply that much higher for AV kit?
It's certainly beginning to look that way for me.
Yes, if I knew for sure that music was going to go multi-channel SACD or whatever, then I can see some justification for high end processors, surround speakers etc for a combined one sytem music/HT role, but for movie surround alone, the priorities and needs are perhaps not so much 'lower' but very different IMHO.
With AV, like stereo, dynamics, detail, powerhandling, bandwidth etc still matter, but the other side of it for movies in particular, seems to be to have speakers as near as possibly matched all round, with a great ability to blend re polar response, off axis sound distribution etc. Methinks my SBL's have the former, but perhaps not so much of the later. Relatively inconsequential for music, but important for AV it appears to be turning out.
In contemplating much more expensive, high resolution, low coloration amps and speakers etc for JUST movie use, most of the advantages they would convey re what is important for stereo use, would most likely be largely negated by the presence/distraction of the picture, IMHO.
Anyway, I must try and stop being so loquacious, and get this posted!
Warmest Regards
John...
Populist thinking exalts the simplistic and the ordinary
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence:
The ATC100s studio monitors have 12" bass units in rather large cabinets!
Now - those ATC's are exactly the type of costly exceptions I was talking about above
Matt.