• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Anyone else just not bothered by home theatre?

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
The picture is in front of me, I'm perfectly fine with the sound also coming from in front of me. Sound quality matters, not the number of speakers.

Actually, the number of speakers matters too, if you are interested in hearing the actual sound mix. (As someone who works on those mixes, I have an inkling of whether you are hearing the intended sound design or not with only two speakers. Generally...no. Not, of course, that a movie can't be enjoyed without the surround mix. You can choose not to hear the original intended mix if you want, but careful not to project that to "the number of speakers don't matter" beyond your preference).


Multi-channel is a gimmick, just like 3D. It adds flash and no substance.

Speaking for yourself...ok. But multichannel arose because for many it really does add to the experience. That's why they incorporated it in to commercial cinemas, and why there are so many home theater enthusiasts who employ surround.

Because you happen not to be interested doesn't make it a "gimmick." That's where you seem to project your own interests because it suggests a sort of "they are trying to pull the whool over our eyes" that you see through, but others are falling for. At least that's how it comes off.

BTW, the surround speakers often actually help map sound to the screen, particularly when you are not using a projection set up with speakers situated behind an acoustically transparent screen. A careful balanced used of the side/height speakers can "lift" the sound higher so it appears to be coming right from the screen/portions of the screen, which is what you want. The dissing of extra channels by some is similar to those who diss CGI with a broad brush, where they think CGI mostly means obvious, action-oriented special effects. They don't realise how often CGI is used in subtle ways they never notice in "regular everyday movies" that aid the believably of what's on screen. It's the same with how surround sound can work.

(As for more expressive use of surround sound, I love good sci-fi and horror movies, and really enjoy the addition of surround sound. I was watching a "haunted house" type movie in my home theater recently and with a big "walk-in-to-it" image, the lights out, and a beautiful surround mix the sense of "being IN the spooky setting with that character on screen" was really effective. Hardly a "gimmick" given how it aided involvement in the scenes).
 

beefkabob

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
1,636
Likes
2,073
With music, the band is in front of me. When I listen, I see them and I expect to hear them from where they are. I don't listen to a band sitting in the middle of the instruments. Stereo is more than enough for music. Also good speakers and positioning lead to a clear sense of location for instruments. A third channel is unnecessary. For a film, the goal may be to place me into the action. Bullets whizzing past and planes flying overhead. In that case, I don't see why a surround system is anything but an improvement. However, my current setup is not conducive to surround sound. When I build my man cave, I will go for it, but then how many channels should I go?
 
Last edited:

KozmoNaut

Active Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
299
Likes
633
Actually, the number of speakers matters too, if you are interested in hearing the actual sound mix. (As someone who works on those mixes, I have an inkling of whether you are hearing the intended sound design or not with only two speakers. Generally...no. Not, of course, that a movie can't be enjoyed without the surround mix. You can choose not to hear the original intended mix if you want, but careful not to project that to "the number of speakers don't matter" beyond your preference).

I don't care about hearing the exact original mix, because then I would have to have the same setup in the same room and so on, as the person who did the mix. Where do you draw the line? All commonly used downmixing puts a bit of the rear channels in the stereo downmix anyway.

I also don't care about exact color calibration beyond what looks good to my eyes, I don't care about 4K vs 1080p, and so on and so forth.

I care about the dialogue, and about seeing and hearing what happens on screen, with adequate fidelity.

You don't seem to understand how I can thoroughly enjoy a movie without the same level of gadgets as you, and that's fine. What I don't appreciate is when some of you take an arrogant tone when faced with opinions that do not agree with yours. It's unfortunately endemic to some hobbies, mostly those that appeal to a certain enthusiast profile.

Some of us have realized that the gadget race is kinda pointless in comparison to experiences out in the real world ;-)
 

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,514
Likes
7,023
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
Like what room eq brings to the listening experience and is almost exclusively part of home theater, but have stereo in other rooms and am just as happy for the most part.

Have heard many good sound systems when stereo was all we really had.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
I don't care about hearing the exact original mix,

Ok, you don't care. Others do. As I said, once we are talking personal preference/goals it's all good.


because then I would have to have the same setup in the same room and so on, as the person who did the mix. Where do you draw the line?

No hard line, but there's significant difference between listening to a bold surround 5.1 (or upwards) mix on the appropriate number of speakers vs 2 speakers. It's not merely a matter of sound quality - you will literally not be able to hear elements of the mix. Everything from sudden door slams, monsters/killers breathing, and lines of dialogue can occur in the surround channels and the line between significant sound cues going missing and being able to hear them seems a good line to talk about. (Keep in mind, this was in context of "how to hear the original surround mix as intended - just adding surround speakers is a good start. You can downmix to your 2 channels...but that wasn't the point I'm addressing).

I also don't care about exact color calibration beyond what looks good to my eyes, I don't care about 4K vs 1080p, and so on and so forth.

Ok. But you don't denigrate those who do care about such things, do you?

You don't seem to understand how I can thoroughly enjoy a movie without the same level of gadgets as you, and that's fine.

You are mistaken. Nowhere have I suggested I "do not realize" that you can thoroughly enjoy a movie without the same level of "gadgets" as me.
I have been quite careful to say you enjoy what you enjoy. Not only do I have friends who still literally watch happily on old CRTs, but I HAPPILY join them watching movies on their CRTs (or other "lowly" set ups). I value movie viewing as a social experience above all, so beyond the technology. But when I can have both, I like both.

I'm pointing out we should be cognizant about projecting our PERSONAL preferences as if they were more than that, which is what you were implying by calling out surround as a "gimmick." Maybe for you; not for a significant number of other people.


Some of us have realized that the gadget race is kinda pointless in comparison to experiences out in the real world ;-)

Please...lead the way, oh Enlightened One. We had no idea that our enjoying surround sound was mere worship of gagetry and not something of actual value!

Have I, in talking about surround sound, indicated to you I have downplayed experiences of the real world? This seems like a fairly haughty strawman.

Again...no one is saying you shouldn't like what you like. Enjoy.
 

FrantzM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
4,337
Likes
7,725
Hi

I am with Matt here. Let's not got ourselves carried away . If we don't like, we simply don't like. Let's not get into labeling things ...

Stereo is a gimmick .. Hifi is a gimmick .. As far as gimmicks go, surround is a pretty nifty gimmick and so is the joy or watching a movie on a good AV system. One that meets objective criterion of excellence. That means the system must be able to mimic what was recorded. If it was recorded for surround then 2-channel simply cannot approach it , gimmick or not... If it has full range effects, the system must be capable of full range at high SPL; as for the colors. "looks good to the eye" don't cut it ...Same as those with a one-driver (Lowther-type) speaker telling you they like it, knowing for well it is not accurate or those who like the Total DAC because they ... like it ... , There are display that compress colors and luminosity, e.g. The "vivid" so prized in the stores demo is similar to heavily compressed music where all the nuances are lost .. It simply plays loud at all times ... same with video on displays not properly calibrated or unable to portray color accurately all all level of luminosity.. a burgundy become a violet ...Some may not care, just like most people find us bizarre with our attraction for correct reproduction when a "Beats" headphone with nothing but bass, is what many see as the nec lus ultra...
I am an HT fan, find the proper reproduction of movies (images and sound) through electronics as important as proper reproduction of music-only through electronics... For that you need properly calibrated HT systems, that means those with correctly s surround sound , subwoofers and Projectors that are reasonably accurate.
Presently enjoying HT though a Denon Receiver hooked to 3 JBL LSR 308 in front, 2 LSR 305 surround and 3 Parts Express subwoofers. Benq HT2050A PJ, and a cheap 120 inch wide screen. I think the screen is the limiting factor in my system ... I don't want to invest in a screen that cost more than my HT but I am looking for a better one and will ping the collective on the issue soon.
 

KozmoNaut

Active Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
299
Likes
633

I'm sure you have a nice setup that is the envy of everyone you know. You seem very invested in it, to the point of jumping to defend its virtues to "non-believers", which I'm sure is rather divisive in normal conversation.

You know what, you win. I'm too old to care about gadget wankfests.
 

LightninBoy

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
712
Likes
1,458
Location
St. Paul, MN
Plenty of people who "don't care about home theater stuff" have ended up thrilled watching movies in this set-up. They say things later like "I had to tell people about watching a movie at your place" or "Lately when I've been watching movies on TV I find myself wondering what it would be like on your big screen." They aren't necessarily motivated to change anything in their own home viewing, but they certainly "get it" when they experience it.

The same goes for two channel music demos. Numerous people have sat down to listen to my various 2 channel high end systems saying things like "this will be probably lost on me, I don't have ear for this kind of things, I just listen on my radio/phone" or whatever. But then they find themselves taken aback and utterly sucked in to the experience "never knew music could actually sound like THAT!"

I know that I'm far from alone in seeing these reactions. I bet many in this forum have had similar experiences.

My teenage son and I decided to watch "2001: A Space Odyssey". For some reason, we started watching in the living room -> 50" TV with sound from the TV. We were both asleep in 15 minutes.

Couple days later, we started the movie up in the HT room and were enthralled for entire movie, and it was all because that classical music score sounded MASSIVE in the HT room. The experience was night and day.
 

JeffS7444

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
2,347
Likes
3,507
Presently enjoying HT though a Denon Receiver hooked to 3 JBL LSR 308 in front, 2 LSR 305 surround and 3 Parts Express subwoofers.

Are you using some sort of speaker to XLR line level adapter to do the deed? Saw such a DIY thing buried in Genelec's literature and have been really intrigued to try it.
 

Kal Rubinson

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,270
Likes
9,773
Location
NYC
You apply a prejudice, based on your own need for envelopment in sound and effects in order to enjoy art.
It was not meant to be rude but to point out that we are talking about reproduction of sounds (and images) which, in the real world are three-dimensional phenomena and I questioned your preference for constraining it.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
I'm sure you have a nice setup that is the envy of everyone you know. You seem very invested in it, to the point of jumping to defend its virtues to "non-believers", which I'm sure is rather divisive in normal conversation.

Could this be another strawman; the implication that I somehow force my enjoyment of audio gear and home theater upon others, clueless to any discomfort this might cause?

Do you really need to do that?

You know what, you win. I'm too old to care about gadget wankfests.

Have you noticed that you are in a forum mainly devoted to discussing *gadgets* (gear)?

You seem simply unhappy with other people enjoying the gear you don't enjoy, to the point of continually using derogatory language like "gadgets" for the ones you don't like and "wankfests" for those who dare like them. Do you see the very long threads with people going in to fine detail in the speaker/amp/dac review forums to be "wankfests?" Why are you here if you don't like the site of people getting in to equipment talk?

Perhaps with even more advancing age will come the wisdom to not be so insulting towards what others like that you may not.

Again: if you don't like surround sound and are perfectly happy with 2 channel for movies...no one is telling you not to enjoy it.
We all have our own interests, things that excite us, and no one is telling you not to follow your own muse.

Cheers.
 

Newk Yuler

Active Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Messages
155
Likes
252
All I want or need is 2.0 and small speakers big enough to mimic a decent frequency range. I really don't mind mono but two speakers provides better presence at lower volume and it's easy to make it stereo. Any TV I'm associated with its setup has no need for high fidelity. My audio systems are separate from video and require hifi. Most of the TV and movies I see are on my laptop and I use inexpensive on-ear headphones for the audio straight out of the laptop. Hifi from the web or drives runs to much better hardware by USB.

The times I tried using a center channel speaker it annoyed me that the sound was always off the screen center. That led me to set up a center channel using two speakers left/right of the screen wired in series. That put the center channel in the middle of the screen.
 

Jimbob54

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
11,064
Likes
14,695
Yarp. I watch very few movies these days, even fewer that would benefit from all the whizz bangery. I listen to 2 channel daily, AV once or twice a month. Know where my money is going.
 
OP
Count Arthur

Count Arthur

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Messages
2,192
Likes
4,880
To be clear, I have nothing against people that enjoy the full home cinema experience. I was merely curious as to whether there were others, like me, who are really enthiusiastic about music playback, but not bothered about TV and movie stuff.

I don't even have a televison at the moment, so if I do watch movies or TV, it's on a PC. For years the only television I had was a 14" portable CRT, which I later replaced with a larger flat screen, purely because I moved and the little television was too small to see from viewing position in a larger room.
 

direstraitsfan98

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
826
Likes
1,225
All I want or need is 2.0 and small speakers big enough to mimic a decent frequency range. I really don't mind mono but two speakers provides better presence at lower volume and it's easy to make it stereo. Any TV I'm associated with its setup has no need for high fidelity. My audio systems are separate from video and require hifi. Most of the TV and movies I see are on my laptop and I use inexpensive on-ear headphones for the audio straight out of the laptop. Hifi from the web or drives runs to much better hardware by USB.

The times I tried using a center channel speaker it annoyed me that the sound was always off the screen center. That led me to set up a center channel using two speakers left/right of the screen wired in series. That put the center channel in the middle of the screen.
 

direstraitsfan98

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
826
Likes
1,225
I don't even have a televison at the moment, so if I do watch movies or TV, it's on a PC. For years the only television I had was a 14" portable CRT, which I later replaced with a larger flat screen, purely because I moved and the little television was too small to see from viewing position in a larger room.

Why settle for a flat screen to replace your 14 incher? Go for the 43 incher. Just make sure your floor is strong enough!

9n7op3byyzqx.png
 
OP
Count Arthur

Count Arthur

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Messages
2,192
Likes
4,880
The funny thing is, the 14" CRT I had was a Sony Trinitron it was as deep as it was wide and pretty heavy, but it did last me about 20 years.

Also, many years ago, whilst I was a student, I worked in an electrical shop and we delivered a huge CRT TV to what turned out to be a tiny cottage. The TV was so large that it wouldn't fit through the front door, even out of the box, so we had to take it around the back and through the patio doors.

Because CRTs are so deep, once in the front room, there was only about three feet from the front of the sofa to the screen and you could make out the individual pixels on the screen from the viewing position. :facepalm:
 

Bear123

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 27, 2019
Messages
796
Likes
1,370
I like music and movies, and TV shows. So for me personally, it makes sense to have a system that does both really well. To that end, I have an AVR that supports more channels than I need or want. My $600 Denon AVR provides a signal that is audibly transparent with noise and distortion far below the threshold of my hearing on any real content. It provides more power than I need at any listening level I currently use. It provides good eq that I can limit to below Schroeder, which is all but *required* if sound quality is the goal. It does a great job of setting up and eq'ing dual subs, another essential tool for optimal sound quality. I have a center channel and a pair of surrounds in wall, with decent quality L/R tower speakers.

My inexpensive multi channel setup provides arguably better sound quality than almost any "pure" 2.0 channel system since it is bass managed and has an accurate, smooth frequency response with very low distortion. So it does stereo better than a 2 channel system, since I have dual subs and eq, and it does home theater, TV, and multi channel music whenever I want, which the outdated mode of 2 channel is not capable of.

I personally don't think it makes much sense to limit ones system to a system that is both suboptimal for sound quality, and incapable of basic multi channel playback.

If I were to build a system purely for music only, I would still likely just get an AVR that has bass management capability and run dual subs. For superior sound quality. And might as well plop a center channel in place to cover all the bases.

However, some folks just want the nostalgia of 2 channel, and thats really fine. It doesn't "bother" me. Some people like old cars with inferior power, handling, breaking, NVH, etc etc. But I don't hold a grudge against them because they don't prefer a car I consider better. However, folks with classic cars don't claim they are "better". It seems many folks gravitate or latch on to two channel because they believe its better. I do disagree with this belief.

Having said all that, if I really just had my heart set on building a system using only two speakers, I would, as who cares what anyone else thinks, right? But I wouldn't kid myself that sound quality would somehow be optimal just because it is a really old and well known configuration.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
To be clear, I have nothing against people that enjoy the full home cinema experience.

Same here. I have nothing against people who don't care about the home theater experience. I totally get it. I have friends who are all about elaborate coffee-making, with their expensive coffee-making machines. I'm "whatever, just gimme a cappuccino, whatever." But I'm happy they have an enthusiasm for it even if I don't care. I have watch-fanatic friends; I wear the cheapest old digital Casio I could find. We all have our things.

As I mentioned: I often go over to friend's houses to watch movies. None of them, whether I'm watching an old CRT or whatever, need apologize for their set up. I don't care. Truly. I am completely in to it because I'll always take watching movies with friends over a more technically impressive version watching solo.

My quirk is that I don't watch TV. I almost hate saying it because for so many years that was a sort of virtue signal - TV being some crass "idiot box" that people who had "better things to do" didn't watch, the individual diverting from the herd. I'm actually embarrassed by the fact I don't watch TV (or very, very little of it) because I know this is a true golden age of television in terms of quality. I'm missing out on tons of it.

But there is just something about content made for TV - TV series in particular - that doesn't grab me. I can still see all the incentive-driven moves in the script/editing etc, that make it "TV" vs "A Film." It's a residual film-snob thing I'm sure, but I have such a hard time being grabbed by a TV show. Tried Breaking Bad, tried Game Of Thrones, tried Mad Men, tried others, just couldn't hook me. (And the thing is I know that being hooked by a TV show is a great thing, it's a fantastic experience!)
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,198
Likes
16,981
Location
Riverview FL
As I'm writing this, imagining 5.1 here:

A speaker touching my left shoulder

Another standing in the walkway into the kitchen

A center standing in front of the rack and obscuring the IR sensors for the preamp.

---

With a more dedicated (to multichannel) environment, sure, I'd give it a shot, I suppose.

Could now with the Oppo and active speakers here laying around for the rears and center.

It wouldn't be that hard.

I'm just lacking the desire to mess with it.

It could be a case of "Never had it, can't miss it".

Or, more likely, "Thanks, but no thanks" just for impractical reasons.

---

More power to those that like it.

Have fun, and carry on!

Invite me over to change my mind.
 
Top Bottom