Most important metrics for home theatre

[Ciobi69]

I’ve just purchased a pair of the Emotiva Airmotiv B1+ based on all the positive reviews. Do you think this is a good buy? The other three I was looking at were the JBL A130, the Polk XT20 and Elac Debut B5.2.

Regarding the subwoofer and integrated amp, I’ll take that on board. Which budget subwoofer would you recommend?

Budget subs xtz or monoprice ,they are really good

 

[YesChickenNuggets]

I've always found surround sound to be a gimmick. It's the situation where if the bread is good, you don't need any peanut butter. If the movie is good and I'm paying attention, I don't even notice the difference between surround and stereo. Helicopter flies over head, yea ok that's cool, but I'm not any more or less convinced that I'm in a house watching a movie.

This might change with VR, once they get the dynamic focal distance working.

 

[Mr. Widget]

I've always found surround sound to be a gimmick. It's the situation where if the bread is good, you don't need any peanut butter. If the movie is good and I'm paying attention, I don't even notice the difference between surround and stereo.

The difference between stereo and surround is the same as between mono and stereo. I suppose you could call them both gimmicks... if the music or movie is good, why do you need more than mono?

Having experienced great stereo and great surround, personally I like those gimmicks!

 

[YesChickenNuggets]

The difference between stereo and surround is the same as between mono and stereo. I suppose you could call them both gimmicks... if the music or movie is good, why do you need more than mono?

Having experienced great stereo and great surround, personally I like those gimmicks!

I'm not anti-surround, but I've run into the exact situation you described, my playback tool chose the mono track by default because it had the highest bitrate, and I did NOT notice, only after when I went to switch to the commentary track.

 

[just1n]

I've always found surround sound to be a gimmick. It's the situation where if the bread is good, you don't need any peanut butter. If the movie is good and I'm paying attention, I don't even notice the difference between surround and stereo. Helicopter flies over head, yea ok that's cool, but I'm not any more or less convinced that I'm in a house watching a movie.

This might change with VR, once they get the dynamic focal distance working.

Wait, what?

 

[Prana Ferox]

As an American I prefer standards over metrics

 

[Dj7675]

I've always found surround sound to be a gimmick. It's the situation where if the bread is good, you don't need any peanut butter. If the movie is good and I'm paying attention, I don't even notice the difference between surround and stereo. Helicopter flies over head, yea ok that's cool, but I'm not any more or less convinced that I'm in a house watching a movie.

This might change with VR, once they get the dynamic focal distance working.

Top Gun:Maverick.. 9.1.7 is such a different experience between Atmos and Stereo. Just like stereo recordings, not all movies are created in regards to sound. It can be challenging integrating into your space, but it can be really special.

 

[pepito]

As an American I prefer standards over metrics

Which standards can I look out for?

 

[Sal1950]

Which standards can I look out for?

Speaker placement.
If you want good stereo or multich playback, it all starts with speaker placement.

 

[lashto]

After watching Erin's video at Erin's Audio Corner about the differences between the criteria when selecting speaker for home theatre use and for music listening, I thought I'd open a discussion here to see what other people thought. In summary, Erin pointed out that for home theatre preference should be given to the following metrics:

• Speaker Output - Capability of handling louder volumes without compression and distortion
• Early Reflections Directivity Index - Relatively smooth line so that speakers can be EQ'd
• Linear Frequency Response - Erin makes an interesting point that people are more likely to be distracted by the action on screen so less likely to notice small deviations from the ideal curve. Anyway, if a speaker has a relatively smooth ERDI you can smooth out the response with EQ.

So, what are the thoughts of the members of this forum regarding the most important metrics for home theatre? Are there any other considerations that one should make when shopping for home theatre speakers?

most important 'metrics' by far: room and WAF. If you don't have both of those, no home theatre for you

Then come the room acoustics. Very tough one and quite a 'luxury' for most of us.

Then comes the measurement microphone & the receiver (or whatever device/software you use for room correction).
Room & speaker correction done right, can make even the worst/cheapest speakers sound good. Or at least quite acceptable.
The other way does not work: the best speakers will not improve a bad room or a subpar correction

Long story short: I would not sweat that much about the speakers... and even less about the atmos/surround speakers.

 

[Mr. Widget]

Long story short: I would not sweat that much about the speakers...

While I agree with you on all of the other points you made, I have a difficult time with your dismissing the importance of the speakers.

I agree that the overall sound quality of a video system is less critical than that of a dedicated two channel system where there is no video to distract us from closing our eyes and focusing on the sound alone, but the speakers are still a very critical component to achieving a successful home theater.

 

[Dj7675]

Then comes the measurement microphone & the receiver (or whatever device/software you use for room correction).
Room & speaker correction done right, can make even the worst/cheapest speakers sound good.

Room EQ is important, but dwarfs the importance of good speakers. You cannot take a “bad” speaker and turn it into a good speaker. Poor directivy can’t be fixed, high distortion can’t be fixed, compression… can’t be fixed with EQ. And we are talking about home theater here as well… meaning high spl of somewhere between 95-105dB peaks at the listening position. Getting speakers that are capable of this isn’t an easy task when the seating distance is 10-15 feet. These are things, that no matter how good the room, or how good the EQ system can overcome. The criteria already discussed is quite good and very helpful in picking the right speakers. Getting appropriate speakers that are up to the task is the most important thing IMO.

 

[Timcognito]

Highest Priority: The highest resolution screen/monitor/TV or projector and the biggest that works for the room size.

 

[Mr. Widget]

The criteria already discussed is quite good and very helpful in picking the right speakers. Getting appropriate speakers that are up to the task is the most important thing IMO.

Exactly what I was trying to say in a more convoluted way.

 

[Sal1950]

I agree that the overall sound quality of a video system is less critical than that of a dedicated two channel system where there is no video to distract us from closing our eyes and focusing on the sound alone, but the speakers are still a very critical component to achieving a successful home theater.

Only if your willing to compromise.
What about when watching live musical performances?
I understand that compromise is a way of life but I find the general idea of specialized systems incorrect.
Put together the most detailed, accurate system you can afford and it will reproduce movies, concerts, or videoless sources equally well.

 

[Mr. Widget]

Only if your willing to compromise.
What about when watching live musical performances?
I understand that compromise is a way of life but I find the general idea of specialized systems incorrect.
Put together the most detailed, accurate system you can afford and it will reproduce movies, concerts, or videoless sources equally well.

I am not suggesting that one should lessen their standards. I am saying with the distraction of the image, be it a musical performance, a film, or even video art, we are less focused on the audio. As amazing as human perception is, and it is quite impressive, video brings additional data and with it we can accept more compromise in the audio.

In my own home and in the projects that I design for my clients, I always strive to make the audio and the video the best that is possible considering the budget and architectural limitations. That said, every system has its compromises, even systems well north of $500K.

 

[Mr. Widget]

I understand that compromise is a way of life but I find the general idea of specialized systems incorrect.

For stereo playback the very best reproduction requires a single seat in the equilateral triangle. For films we design the room to cover as wide an area as possible for multiple viewers. By this very nature the best two channel room and the best home theater are different.

You can design a room to give a stellar 2 channel performance in one location and also provide a very elevated home theater experience, but it requires extra care and in my experience it is easier to have two separate systems.

 

[lashto]

While I agree with you on all of the other points you made, I have a difficult time with your dismissing the importance of the speakers.

I agree that the overall sound quality of a video system is less critical than that of a dedicated two channel system where there is no video to distract us from closing our eyes and focusing on the sound alone, but the speakers are still a very critical component to achieving a successful home theater.

The comment is mostly about the so called "atmos speakers", I should've written that from beginning.

I would only put serious money/effort into the two stereos and the sub(s). Maybe the center too but that is already close to nitpicking territory. IMO, the rest can be (almost) whatever. Will probably help if they are ~same but even that is not such a big thing. Yes you can sweat a lot about stuff like directivity/etc but IMO that is deep into nitpicking territory.

Here's a nice video series about what needs to be done to 'fix' audissey, particularly calibrate those very low quality mics (+- 6dB). Huge effort and huge changes. Or just use a better mic & room correction

 

[lashto]

Room EQ is important, but dwarfs the importance of good speakers. You cannot take a “bad” speaker and turn it into a good speaker. Poor directivy can’t be fixed, high distortion can’t be fixed, compression… can’t be fixed with EQ. And we are talking about home theater here as well… meaning high spl of somewhere between 95-105dB peaks at the listening position. Getting speakers that are capable of this isn’t an easy task when the seating distance is 10-15 feet. These are things, that no matter how good the room, or how good the EQ system can overcome. The criteria already discussed is quite good and very helpful in picking the right speakers. Getting appropriate speakers that are up to the task is the most important thing IMO.

It's a bit of a wash I guess. I think correction is more important but there are good arguments for the speakers, too.

Room correction will fix the FR and the more advanced ones will also fix timing/phase. Those are by far the biggest issues. And the biggest gains.

Poor directivity: can't be fixed but it's also not very important for the atmos/surround boxes. You just need to place them right/accordingly. And nowadays most speakers have ok directivity (i.e. ~constant).
High distortion/compression: can't be fixed but those problems are usually in the low Hz area. Crossover at 120Hz will (mostly) take care of that.

 

[Dj7675]

The comment is mostly about the so called "atmos speakers", I should've written that from beginning.

I would only put serious money/effort into the two stereos and the sub(s). Maybe the center too but that is already close to nitpicking territory. IMO, the rest can be (almost) whatever. Will probably help if they are ~same but even that is not such a big thing. Yes you can sweat a lot about stuff like directivity/etc but IMO that is deep into nitpicking territory.

Here's a nice video series about what needs to be done to 'fix' audissey, particularly calibrate those very low quality mics (+- 6dB). Huge effort and huge changes. Or just use a better mic & room correction

I guess it comes down to what you are trying to accomplish in your home space. But if you are trying to have a home theater (ie to replicate the theater experience in your home) there are standards and reasons for those standards. Considering those standards and attempting to meet them will ensure a more cinema like experience. In immersive formats, all speakers are called upon to produce very high output, not just the L/R or the sub. If you put anything on “the rest” of the channels, when the soundtrack calls for playing high output content on that channel, it will compromise the experience. This means having the best quality surround and Atmos speakers you can do… speakers that don’t distort/compress and have the dispersion to cover the seats you care about.
You can put ”almost whatever” speaker anywhere, and you will get sound of course. But the more effort and care that is put in to the center, surround, and Atmos speakers the better and closer you can get to replicating the theater in your home. And in regards to the center for home theater… in really needs to be the same quality as the L/R speakers when you consider both the sheer activity of the center channel, peak levels, and importance of dialogue etc… putting a poor speaker there is the best way to have a poor experience IMO. Actually I think you might be the first person I have heard say the center isn’t important.