Why equipment differences - music vs movies

[purplepeople]

From what I see, there appears to be a wide consensus that audio equipment choices are different for music vs movies. Why?

Wouldn't a good choice for stereo also translate into a excellent front L/R channels for the HT? IOW, would you get killer HT just by adding the other 3.1 channels?

ensen.

[Andrew Pratt]

Possibly but there's aspects of both that you could concentrate on to maximize the benefit for the dollar. For example if HT is important then a 5 channel amp might make more sense as each speaker is important where as a 2 channel amp might be a better idea if music is your game and HT is secondary as you could get a more powerful 2 channel amp for the same dollar amount. Same goes for your choice of transport...a universal do it all might work for a HT nut but an audiophile might want to get a cheap DVD player and a nicer CD player.

[ThomasW]

IOW, would you get killer HT just by adding the other 3.1 channels?

Yes, unless your idea of 'good' 2 channel is high efficiency fullrange speakers, and flea sized SET amps

[purplepeople]

Maximize... well that's certainly true of the many that have separate 2-ch and HT. But Andrew, for the normal mortals, credit ratings allow only one system.

That said, what puzzles me is the number of people (online and in person) that want both good music and movies and then choose components that equate to a larger version of the HTIB. The result is not very good at either.

With the amount of information on the web, it surprises me that more people do not mix brands and models of speakers so that the two mains are very good for music, the center translates voices well and the surrounds have very clear mids/highs? Or try two centers to create a virtual mono within the screen (rather than above it)? We all know that the popularity of 5.1 means that there are comparatively good deals on 2-ch amps...so why don't more people stack 3 amps for less than the cost of a single 6-ch monster? Or with the plethora of DVD(A) and SACD players with 6-ch output, why there are no 6-channel integrated amps?

And lest we think that I only know audio, why is it that there are no available specs for the optical systems of various projectors or that megabuck TVs have less image control than $200 computer monitors? Why don't TV's have good audio circuits so that when we watch MTV, it is worthy of being pumped through the rest of the audio system?

To be honest, I firmly believe these questions are rhetorical. Nobody is asking for 6-ch integrated amps so why should the mfg make them. Very few people even know the THX optimizer comes free on many DVDs, never mind trying to calibrate their display with it.

Thomas, why do you think that tubes and single drivers make for bad L/R mains? Wouldn't something that plays music well play soundtracks just as well? (Let me say that I have all SS but am considering a pair of single driver Voigt pipes either side of my TV for a center channel.)

ensen.

[Andrew Pratt]

But Andrew, for the normal mortals, credit ratings allow only one system.

My comments were for a single system doing both duties. What I mean by amp choice is that for someone that cares more about 2 channel a receiver paired up with a high power 2 channel amp might make more sense then pairing the receiver up with a lower powered 5 channel amp. The dollar amount remains the same but the priorities have shifted. I tend to agree with you about the speaker choices though...a great music speaker will do well for movies...but a good movie speaker might not work well for music (see THX speakers for example)

[Bruce]

. . . . Or try two centers to create a virtual mono within the screen (rather than above it)?

I'm not sure this is an accurate representation of what happens with 2 center channel speakers. IMO, 2 centers would produce excessive comb filtering that would make this configuration worse than a single center channel that was simply aimed/placed better.

We all know that the popularity of 5.1 means that there are comparatively good deals on 2-ch amps...so why don't more people stack 3 amps for less than the cost of a single 6-ch monster?

Well as an example, take a 5-channel amp with a hefty power supply (say 1.6 kVA) and 100,000 uf capacitance. In some multichannel amp designs, this capacity can be leveraged and utilized when using it in 2-channel mode (versus a 2-channel amp with less headroom).

IMO system synergy is important for both 2-channel and HT, but I do think sticking with a single vendors speaker systems makes a more seamless soundspace for multichannel (except for subs). At least it did for me with Dynaudio speakers in a combined 2-channel 5.1 system.

I bought my speakers for their high quality music ability, and they work just fine for HT.

[aud19]

I'm not sure this is an accurate representation of what happens with 2 center channel speakers. IMO, 2 centers would produce excessive comb filtering that would make this configuration worse than a single center channel that was simply aimed/placed better.


Well as an example, take a 5-channel amp with a hefty power supply (say 1.6 kVA) and 100,000 uf capacitance. In some multichannel amp designs, this capacity can be leveraged and utilized when using it in 2-channel mode (versus a 2-channel amp with less headroom).

IMO system synergy is important for both 2-channel and HT, but I do think sticking with a single vendors speaker systems makes a more seamless soundspace for multichannel (except for subs). At least it did for me with Dynaudio speakers in a combined 2-channel 5.1 system.

I bought my speakers for their high quality music ability, and they work just fine for HT.

Agree :yesnod: and agree :yesnod:

I'll also add that one of the things that some people do for seperate 2-channel/HT systems is lean towards warmer, more "musical" gear for music and more "in your face" gear for movies.

I also agree that a good music system will work well for movies but not necessarily vice versa.

Jason

[purplepeople]

Good to see that others believe that a good music system will make good movie sounds. As for the warmer/forward thing... I prefer neither over accuracy. If the music is badly EQ'ed or the soundtrack poorly matrixed, I want to know it - let's me know which discs are worth keeping.

Interesting about the leveraging the power supply of a 5-ch for 2-ch usage. Maybe it would be better to have internal circuits bridge 2 pairs into the main L/R terminals.

As for single vs dual centers...my thinking is that if diffractive effects were that bad, we'd hear it every time the mix was panned partially to one side. I figure if the centers are well matched, it shouldn't be any more of a problem than multi-speaker set-ups at the cinema.

How about the optics part? Anybody have data on projector lenses? I'm getting close to being in the market for an LCD or DLP and want to be able to compare the way I research my digital camera purchases.

ensen.

[Bruce]

Maybe it would be better to have internal circuits bridge 2 pairs into the main L/R terminals.

I'm certainly Not talking about bridging, which lowers the damping factor of the amp drastically.

I'm talking about utilizing the potential of the power supply for 2-channels when it's not needed for 5 channels, an entirely different design criteria than bridging. I would never use bridging.

As for single vs dual centers...my thinking is that if diffractive effects were that bad, we'd hear it every time the mix was panned partially to one side.

Don't understand your thinking here. Panning adjusts the level to each speaker involved, instead of sending the exact same SPL level of the exact same signal to more than one speaker. Plus panning is a moving target not a steady state event. It will also depend on how close to each other the 2 centers are.

Over the last 5-6 years, I can remember a number of forum members who tried 2 centers, described the experience online, and then went back to a single center.

Don't know if searching on the various forums would provide that info, but it might be worth your exploration if you're interested.

[purplepeople]

I'm certainly Not talking about bridging, which lowers the damping factor of the amp drastically.

Hmmm, I didn't know that. My understanding was that bridging created a full wave because the channel that fed the speaker's ground was inverted, providing the opposite signal into each terminal - and that you would get double the amplitude and control.

As for the dual centers, I figure there must be a way since 6.1 and 7.1 have put multiple center rear channels. Even more so in the real IMAX, DTS and THX theatres as it can't all be done with a single speakers on any one channel.

Besides, the audio mix can't always be sent to any one front channel at a time. There are sounds that are panned partially to one side to coincide with screen left or screen right. To pan fully L or R would seem non-real, especially for actions that occur on screen but distinctly to one side of it. In such a mix, the signal is essentially mono to the panned speakers, a situation that is the diffractive equivalent to a pair of centre speakers connected to the same channel.

I will look it up... maybe just running a parallel duo is not enough... maybe there also has to be a some type of post-decoder processing or mixing.

ensen.

[Whistler]

Hi,

I prefer two seperate systems, the reason is very simple. There are hardly any surround processors that deliver same quality as a very good stereo pre-amp. I haven't seen a surround processor that reaches the quality of a "Mark Levinson No. 380S" except the Mark Levinson No. 40 which isn't a real bargain at all .

At the moment I am upgrading my stereo, which means that it will take some time untill I have all the stuff I want .

Stereo: Mark Levinson, Kimber Kable, Revel
Surround: Parasound Halo, Kimber Kable, Revel

Regards,

Whistler

[purplepeople]

I can't afford any separate processor right now so I use my DVPs 5.1 outs directly to amplification.

But, it would be interesting to know what experience people have with sending the digital source simultaneously into a stereo pre/pro and a surround processor, then amplifying 2-ch from the pre/pro and only the three non L/R channels from the surround pro. Instead of 2 separate systems, use the surround system only to provide any extra needed channels.

ensen.

[Bruce]

purple,

I've been using a stereo 2-channel preamp with an HT processor in my combined system for the last 5 years, because I'm about 90/10% Music/HT.

To do this, I connect CD player, TT, and FM tuner to my 2-channel preamp and then to the L&R main channels of my 5-channel amp. I never even turn on the HT processor when listening to music.

A separate DVD player is connected to the HT processor (DD/DTS 5.1). The L&R main channels from the HT processor go to the 2-channel preamp inputs, while the rest of the HT processor channels go directly to the 5-channel amp.

[Bruce]

Purple,

A little more detail . . . . .

I use Dynaudio Contour 2.8 tower main L&R speakers with an f3 of 32Hz, and a complement of Dynaudio Contours for center and surrounds with an M&K sub.

I don't like that most DD/DTS processors use a 12dB/octave electrical slope on the high-pass filter for speakers designated as small (depending on a 12dB/octave acoustic rolloff from the speakers), and a 24dB/octave slope on the low-pass filter to the sub. An obvious and very audible mismatch unless you have THX certified speakers.

Instead, I define L&R mains as large, don't use the processor's sub-out channel at all, thus re-directing all bass to the main L&R channels. I utilize a high quality external crossover (Marchand XM9-L) between the L&R main channels and sub(s) with a symmetrical 24dB/octave high-pass and low-pass slope and L-R alignment (zero degree phase offset) and a crossover frequency of 60Hz (about 1 octave above the main speaker's f3).

This also allows me to use a parametric EQ only on the sub(s), and provides sub output in both 2-channel and HT modes.

[Chris D]

Maximize... well that's certainly true of the many that have separate 2-ch and HT. But Andrew, for the normal mortals, credit ratings allow only one system.

With the amount of information on the web, it surprises me that more people do not mix brands and models of speakers

Actually, purplepeople, I respectfully disagree strongly. I HIGHLY advocate matching speakers in a surround setup. My theater is primarily focused upon watching and listening to surround material, such as movies, but I do use it for music listening as well. It is very distracting to me hearing surround material come out of speaker systems that are not matched, and it only gets worse if they're made by different companies. As a sound moves from one channel to the next, it can change drastically in quality, like a person changing their voice or walking into a different room while continuing a conversation. Having speakers designed for their particular place in a setup, but matched with each other, ensures that your system will integrate together very well while playing surround material.

For me, this is a good compromise with movies and music. My system is all Klipsch speakers, based on their Legend series, with similar horn drivers. Having an actor talk from the front left main and then move to the back right, the sound remains just about the same. While I respect those people who have awesome setups with electrostatic mains, a B&K center, and then some other high-end botique surrounds, I don't think it sounds good with surround material and I get distracted. It's awesome for music, though.

[purplepeople]

I HIGHLY advocate matching speakers in a surround setup.

I agree, when it is easy to afford. But, as befits my credit rating, I upgrade in very small steps.

When I went from cheap stereo to mid-fi, I bought studio monitors. For the current set-up another better pair of studio monitors to relegate the first pair to the surrounds. The next upgrade will be another pair of monitors to move the L/R into a pair of centres. Etc.

By listening to and getting better and better studio monitors, I've ensured that my system is as flat and neutral as I can afford at any given time, and without having to replace every speaker in the system simultaneously. Not only is that expensive, it means that I've made any given set obsolete. With my scheme, I hope to be surrounded one day with Mackie monitors and to have had my Yorkvilles and Tannoys demoted to office or workshop use. A situation which give me overkill systems every step of the way.

ensen.