|
|
Post by Slinger on Aug 21, 2018 15:27:56 GMT
Here's a thought, and I'd be lying if I didn't say that it was Martin who originally caused me to muse on the subject, but there are lots of people that this applies to.
Why do people who are prepared to spend a goodly percentage of their disposable income on making their hi-fi sound as perfect as possible, i.e. to reproduce, as faithfully as they are able, what the artists, producers, and engineers intend us to hear, not seem bothered about doing the same with their 'home entertainment systems,' for want of a better term?
To me it seems like a no-brainer, and it's a wee bit of a hobby-horse with me too, as you will have noticed. If a film is soundtracked in 5.1 why would I listen to it a version that's been dragged down to stereo? Without going too far down the preaching and proselytising path (for surely that way lies madness. Don't call me Shirley! 😜) if I'm supposed to be hearing a sound effect behind me, why wouldn't I want to hear it...well...behind me?
As I say it seems so obvious to me and it strikes me as a strange contrast among a group of people whos professed hobby is named after a truncated version of the phrase "high fidelity," - the reproduction of sound (in this instance) that is faithful to the original.
Can it be as simple as people thinking that 'audio-visual' is some sort of poor relation of audio alone, and not worth the bother?
I shall interested to hear from both camps, obviously.
|
|
|
|
Post by zippy on Aug 21, 2018 15:52:07 GMT
Why do people who are prepared to spend a goodly percentage of their disposable income on making their hi-fi sound as perfect as possible, i.e. to reproduce, as faithfully as they are able, what the artists, producers, and engineers intend us to hear, not seem bothered about doing the same with their 'home entertainment systems,' for want of a better term?
In my case, because I don't use DVDs, and the sound quality I get from streamed films is nowhere near that of my audio system so not worth spending the money .
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 21, 2018 16:34:38 GMT
It's a good question and I'm happy to answer for myself as long as people don't get upset.
In a concert hall, the sound source is in front of me. I hear mainly the orchestra with a little room acoustics and reverb thrown in which helps my brain to understand that this is a big hall and not a cupboard. My ears point mostly forwards. To reproduce this requires stereo of high quality. I have never (and I mean never) heard a satisfactory demo of quadraphonics or ambisonics that does a better job of it than stereo. Surround of any sort doesn't work for me and, more importantly, the signal is going through more processing than I want. It's not for nothing that I work hard to get two channels working well. As for 5.1 for music, no thanks.
Sidetrack momentarily to 3D films in the cinema. When did that ever enhance the enjoyment of a good storyline or a great visual panorama? All it does for me is distract and spoil the potentially great picture in front of me. My brain doesn't want or need the artificial cue of depth, I've got it anyway.
Back to surround. For me, 3D was a disastrous move by the technology companies to get everyone to buy new equipment. On the other hand, 4K is superb. It gives me more of a two dimensional picture with huge detail. Cinemascope in high definition is exactly how my eyes see vistas.
What do I want to go with my highly detailed high definition picture? Highly detailed sound which correctly attaches to that picture. A telephone ringing hard left goes with what I'm seeing. An explosion behind me doesn't. For me, 3D and surround sound are similar gimmicks which detract from my enjoyment of great cinema and television.
|
|
|
|
Post by speedysteve on Aug 21, 2018 17:09:21 GMT
Lived with 5.1 for a few years.
Lived without it.
Have 5.1 again now.
Marie doesn't like it loud or thumping though. So it's a solo pleasure..
|
|
|
|
Post by julesd68 on Aug 21, 2018 17:36:40 GMT
Wot Martin said.
Never seriously considered 5.1, mainly as don't have TV or living room to do it justice. There's also something about it that doesn't convince me I need it, but not sure what that is.
Also, I find my trusty SMSL Q5 and small speakers keep me very happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slinger on Aug 21, 2018 21:18:13 GMT
As with everything, it's a matter of personal taste, I suppose. I like 3D (only when it's done properly) and do think it can enhance a film, but it's the 'sound' component I'm really interested in, as we mostly talk about audio here. I like the feeling of being "in" the action rather than just observing it, and I think decent 5.1 (and more) sound contributes to a more immersive experience. Again, I go back to wanting to experience what the director and his team intended, or as close to it as I can afford to get.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Aug 21, 2018 22:41:15 GMT
I don't watch enough of anything like that to warrant any sort of expenditure at all! A stereo system with a good amount of gain applied and the ability to throw a big sound stage is more than enough 'realism' for me on the extremely odd occasion.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 22, 2018 4:07:47 GMT
I might watch a film once a few weeks I hardly watch any TV so for me it just not worth the effort.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slinger on Aug 22, 2018 12:53:52 GMT
I should, from reading some of the answers, perhaps take into account that maybe AV is a larger part of my life than that of a large proportion of people here. Consequently, perhaps, the use of more "sophisticated" equipment would make more sense to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2018 13:02:46 GMT
I used to have a 5.1 system, but sold it recently as I found that I just didn't need it, and found it distracting at times when watching the more forced action movies. It also used to be all connected up via my 2 channel hifi system, and that was having a detrimental impact on the Hifi and since removing it, has improved things. I bought a Sky Sound box and yes, in a lot of ways it doesn't sound as good as my previous 5.1 system, but in reality I am not that overly bothered. Space was also an issue now we have our son causing chaos in the house  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2018 21:14:40 GMT
It just doesn’t interest me enough to warrant the cost. The few times I’ve heard it, it’s been good fun!
I put all of my time and effort into getting my 2 channel the best it can be and don’t want to dilute my resources into anything else.
I understand your point about them being closely linked hobbies although I liken it to wine and whisky enthusiasts; similar but being a fan of one hobby doesn’t mean you’ll be interested in the other. I love whisky, I’m so so about wine.
|
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Aug 23, 2018 7:58:38 GMT
My music and cinematic systems are one and the same.
I don't watch many films (DVDs), so it's not worth the expense of adding more channels.
Most of the DVD videos I watch are pre-surround anyway.
I don't have a large enough room to capture the rear channels properly.
I'm quite happy with surround films in stereo. Having things explode behind me holds no real fascination for me.
Now if a decent immersive VR film system were developed .... I'd probably listen on suitable headphones! That's assuming I was at all interested, which is doubtful.
|
|
