Home cinema is dead

[Frank Harvey]

No where is any price point mentioned about the 5.1 system they're criticising. They're basically saying that ALL 5.1 systems suffer the problems they mention, as stated in this quote: "If you haven't figured it out yet, here at AVI, we tend to think that the "cinematic experience" of surround sound is a bit of a cheap trick." That's not distinguishing a specific price point.

A 5.1 system is recreating the 5.1 mix that has been mixed in the studio. Taking a 2.1 and a 5.1 system of equal quality, there is no way the 2.1 system can recreate that 5.1 sousndtrack in the same way that the 5.1 system can. It's the way it's been mixed.

 

[Anonymous]

EDITED BY MODS - please do not discuss banned posters

 

[chebby]

This is what I would put up against the AVI 5.2.1 system


I haven't heard either, but the £1100 Yamaha is neater and £200 cheaper. So if I were in the market for a simple, good quality AV sound without a roomful of speakers and wires then I think I would would want to hear both types of 'solution'.

 

[Frank Harvey]

But that's not the sort of solution they're referring to. They're referring to "5.1 or 7.1" systems, not soundbars.

 

[chebby]

Well Dave, you and I are unlikely to ever find out until someone here on the forum gets an AVI Neutron 5.2.1 system and honestly compares it with their 5.1 surround system.

WHF are probably not going to fork out for more AVI kit to test and AVI don't give out review samples. They are unlikely to send you a set either ! (They don't 'do' dealers.)

 

[scene]

aliEnRIK:
" a bit of base"? Whats that then?

And yes I agree, when I get home im going to bin all my av equipment

Can you tell me where your bin is, as I can feel I need to upgrade some of my kit

 

[Frank Harvey]

Ah, but they DO do dealers....

I know what their system will sound like. The nearest thing I've heard to a 5.1 set up that isn't a 5.1 set up has been the Naim one, whereby a slight delay is added to the rear speakers to give a little depth. This involved no Dolby or DTS processing, in fact, there was no processing, except that of the audio delay. This system didn't use a centre, just two seakers at the front and two speakers at the back. The system worked well - extremely clean sounding, and was a better option for those that wanted multi-channel music. But could it recreate the effect a busy, action movie soundfield? No.

From your seating position, there are 360 degrees. Any one of those degrees could be your point source at any time.

 

[chebby]

FrankHarveyHiFi:I know what their system will sound like. The nearest thing I've heard to a 5.1 set up that isn't a 5.1 set up has been the Naim one...

Oh my. That will go down well at AVI HQ !

Someone who hasn't heard their Neutron 5.2.1 kit likening it to a Naim system!

 

[Frank Harvey]

I'm not comparing IT to the Naim system, I'm just stating that I have heard systems that aren't processed 5.1, and while they do a good job, they can in no way reproduce what was intended in the studio they were mixed.

 

[TheHomeCinemaCentre]

EDITED BY MODS - please do not discuss banned posters

I believe in 5.1 and beyond but it is not for everybody. Comparing 2.1 systems I can put together 2 speakers a sub and an AV amp for £1299 that would offer more facilities and rival the AVI sound quite easily. It would also allow you to upgrade to a tangle of wires should you wish.

Each to their own.

 

[f1only]

TheHomeCinemaCentre:I believe in 5.1 and beyond but it is not for everybody. Comparing 2.1 systems I can put together 2 speakers a sub and an AV amp for £1299 that would offer more facilities and rival the AVI sound quite easily. It would also allow you to upgrade to a tangle of wires should you wish.

Each to their own.

DONT PANIC

Phew, that was close. Ok Nick thanks for that, cancel my cancellation, tell the guys out back everythings back to normal, whatever normality is & make yourself a realy nice hot

 

[John Duncan]

I'd rather listen to a film in stereo than 5.1...

 

[Frank Harvey]

That's fine if you're watching Much Ado About Nothing

 

[Big Chris]

JohnDuncan:I'd rather listen to a film in stereo than 5.1...

Mmmmm...... I'd rather listen to a film in quality stereo than shoddy surround, but a decent surround system can't be beat with movies.

What don't you like about surround sound John?

 

[TheHomeCinemaCentre]

TheHomeCinemaCentre:

EDITED BY MODS - please do not discuss banned posters

I believe in 5.1 and beyond but it is not for everybody. Comparing 2.1 systems I can put together 2 speakers a sub and an AV amp for £1299 that would offer more facilities and rival the AVI sound quite easily. It would also allow you to upgrade to a tangle of wires should you wish.

Each to their own.
Sorry I didnt realise.

 

[Andrew Everard]

No probs - by the way, if you want to change your username to The2.1ComputerSpeakersWithABitOfBassCentre, you'll be able to do that (hopefully) if and when we get the new site software in place.

 

[John Duncan]

Big Chris:What don't you like about surround sound John?

The screen is flat and over there, and I find it a bit 'false' that the soundfield is not. I'm not saying I don't enjoy 5.1, but in my own house I'd rather put up with the compromises of good stereo movie sound than the physical compromises required to accommodate 5.1.

 

[chebby]

Anyone knows that £40 Logitechs will hammer 14,000 quid's worth of aero alloy part-filled with foot fresheners.

 

[Sliced Bread]

chebby:Anyone knows that £40 Logitechs will hammer 14,000 quid's worth of aero...

Wow that's ugly

 

[Anonymous]

chebby:
Well, the OP is not the first to write off 5.1 and 7.1 surround systems.

AVI are now telling us that it is all a "cheap trick" and it is... "all driven by monstrously inefficient and expensive surround sound receivers connected to huge nests of wire."

Actually I also prefer to watch movies with stereo sound for the same reason that AVI are. The movie is on the tv in front of me so sound should come from that general direction too. Maybe Im old but thats how i feel. Sound comming from all directons when the movie is in front of me is not natural for me.

 

[chebby]

Ditto Joe and John.

I prefer stereo when watching movies.

 

[Sliced Bread]

I wouldn't ever say that stereo is better than a decent av system, however I must admit that watching films via my fathers Roksan Kandy and Kef iQ5s is actually quite a pleasant experience.

A good clean sound which produces a mellower and more relaxing way to watch a film compared to my system. It can't compete when it comes to blockbusters though and the lack of centre speaker is an issue for me. Vocals can sounds a bit lop-sided if you're not sitting in the sweet spot.

EDIT: I know this thread started in a bit of a weird way, but it's actually prompted quite an interesting discussion.

So to the people who prefer watching movies in stereo. What is it about the sound that makes you prefer a stereo system (for films)? Is it the clean sound, the tidier setup in your living room or something else?

 

[Anonymous]

Agree with you on the vocals Sliced Bread.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Sliced Bread:It can't compete when it comes to blockbusters though and the lack of centre speaker is an issue for me. Vocals can sounds a bit lop-sided if you're not sitting in the sweet spot.

This is the biggest problem for 2 channel systems. As well as some speakers can image, they can't produce a central image when you sit off centre. They can do it if you sit in the hotspot, but have no chance when you sit off to the side.

I can understand when people say that the screen is in front of them, so the sound should be as well. The centre speaker in a 5.1 system will do most of the work, as it anchors to the screen the majority of what is happening - it's not just for dialogue. The left and right speakers are there for music, left and right effects, sounds that continue off screen, and to add ambience. The rear speakers are there to add ambience and again to reproduce the sound of anything that has passed the listener and move to the back of the room. Also, any indirect reflection of sound from noises that happen at the front will be reproduced throught these too. As an example, if you're walking down the street, you may see and hear an ambulance siren in front of you. It will pass you, lets say, to the right, and continue behind you off into the distance. ALl the time during this happening there will be the imitial sound that hits you, but also the secondary (and more) reflections from surrounding buildings that will reach you after the initial sound. There is no way that a 2.1 system can reproduce that.

Studios spend a lot of money mixing these soundtracks, and to then play them in 2 channel, especially from a Bluray, is a waste.

EDIT: I know this thread started in a bit of a weird way, but it's actually prompted quite an interesting discussion.

I tend to find that some of the best discussions are born from threads that go off topic.

 

[chebby]

David, why am I suprised that you - as a dealer - favour systems where a £2k AV amp/receiver (at least) is required instead of a £500 stereo amp, where 5 or 7 speakers (and a sub) are required instead of 2, and where (at least) three times more sets of speaker cables (of much longer lengths) are necessary?

Can you honestly say the 'Kerrching factor' of 5.1 and 7.1 AV is not swaying your opinion one jot?

Unless one employs the services of a specialist installation company (along with a plasterer and decorator and electrician), the average living room is rendered ugly by 6 (or 8) speakers with all the concomitant wiring, brackets, stands, AV racks etc. Not just ugly but - in the the case of smaller rooms - virtually unusable for anything other than watching TV.