Re: Comcast HD service


"MZ" <mark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:26qdnWxscKcEMX3bnZ2dnUVZ_uygnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Sri Krsna" <vze3drf7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:46E09378.90407@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MZ wrote:

Eh, I prefer a stereo setup over surround. I've owned, used, and set up
both dozens of times, but the artificial subwoofer + satellite combo
leaves a lot to be desired, IMO. It's typically lacking significantly in
the 200-400Hz range (lower midrange), and they're almost always ported
wrong (and too small), so you get a wild frequency response below that.
A good stereo pair will give you a far better sound, even if it lacks the
movie theater boom and sizzle (something which I find annoying, by the
way).

Having said that, a good center channel design with good processing can
add a fair amount of depth. And by processing, I don't mean the crap
that comes with most 5.1 receivers. But its benefits are very much
room-dependent.
Yeah, but Glenn doesn't exactly strike me as being a die-hard music fan
or music DVD fan so for what he wants, it's probably in his best interest
to be dazzled at the local Best Buy or Crazy Eddy's. I like you run a
stereo gig in my living room with a McIntosh set-up that's about a decade
old and I really can't complain about the sound. The only weakness with
this set-up is that when out of the sweet spot, the dialogue when
watching movies is a bit muddled, but there's an elegance and musical
truth to the stereo set-up even when spinning SACDs or DVD-A that I don't
want to sacrifice. The rig in my study is a bit more serious though so I
tend to do most of my music listening there.

I wasn't only referring to music listening either, where two channel tends
to reign supreme. And, granted, many of the movies I tend to watch either
pre-existed surround sound or just don't benefit much by it. But even for
the other types of movies, I'm just not overwhelmed by the audio and see
more problems with it than benefits. Especially with your typical home
theater setups, which belong over in the Bose section of "innovative and
neat looking, but lacking in functionality and quality." I went to the
Transformers movie recently with some friends (yeah, I know...), and was
annoyed to no end at the shrill highs and overpowering boomy sub bass
(bass isn't supposed to be boomy, folks, even down to 20Hz). And to
think, people actually try to replicate that sound!

Mark, most movie theaters have crappy sounding subs. They never recalibrate
them once they are set up. So often I just hear these massive subsd
bottoming out durring heavy bass scenes. My HT is calibrated using a sound
pressure metter so I have pretty even sounding bass, but I will admit, I do
crank the sub up a bit higher than the speakers.
As far as movies with surround that really take great advantage of it,
"House of Flying Daggers" is one of my favorites. Great surround effect and
a really good movie. Another great surround movie is "Pearl Harbor". Yeah,
the movie itself is not much, but the sound track is amazing. You hear the
planes flying right by you.

Not only that, but the "sweet spot" issues you bring up are only
exaggerated as you add more channels of audio. It's hardly a trivial
matter to get two channel
s to play nicely, let alone 5 or 6 or more. Technically, additional
channels can help the image, especially when they're encoded specifically
to do so like 5.1 (hell, I installed a "dumb" center channel in my car for
that very purpose), but it's not easy to implement correctly. Certainly
not by opening a box and screwing the stuff to the wall. Yes,
multichannel audio can have its benefits (surprisingly, even for music),
but only when done correctly.
Well, that's is why you need a good home theater receiver. I think Yamaha
does an excellent job with what you just spoke about and gives you a lot of
flexibility to do fine tuning. You can change output and crossover points on
all 5 spearkers.

That's not to say that people won't like what they hear when they make the
"upgrade" to a home theater setup. After all, to each his own. But I
wouldn't suggest it to someone without knowing their tastes, the movies
they watch, and most importantly, the room it'll be in.

Most people I would not classify as audiophiles. Bose set ups are normally
sufficient for about 80% of the population. I don't think Bose is
particularly bad, I just think it limits you and does not have good low
bass.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The best MP3 VBR bitrate choice when encoding audio?
    ... frequencies, then, based on how you know the human ear processes sound, ... needs to encode it directly, which is where some of the extra bits go. ... I don't even know if lame (or any audio compressor) does ... taking maybe 15 minutes for a 2 hour movie, movie encode in 1.5 hours or ...
    (comp.compression)
  • Re: need advice re cheap home theater systems
    ... I particularly like that the DVD ... It did not fix the very weak, clipped speech in my DVD copy of Duel in the ... Sun Gregory Peck, which has 2 channel sound, but I'm becoming ... to play that DVD movie with the subtitles turned on. ...
    (alt.video.dvd)
  • Re: Comcast HD service
    ... about a decade old and I really can't complain about the sound. ... I went to the Transformers movie recently with some friends ... I do crank the sub up a bit higher than the speakers. ... As far as movies with surround that really take great advantage of it, ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: Comcast HD service
    ... A good stereo pair will give you a far better sound, ... a good center channel design with good processing can ... I went to the Transformers movie recently with some friends (yeah, ... As far as movies with surround that really take great advantage of it, ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: merge mpg files
    ... With "mplayer", record the sound to a WAV track and the video source to PNG ... lots of commercials I don't want to see every time I watch the movie. ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)