|
Termyn8or -> RE: Home Theatre Systems (2/21/2011 3:50:48 PM)
|
"No, I didnt get the best of everything that money can buy but on my budget "
Cool. I didn't mean to put Onkyo down, sorry if it sounded like it. Just very very few things impress me. Onkyo, Technics and a few others make fine (what I call) mid level systems.
On surround systems, I can't stand most of the modes. All this digital delay echo stuff gets old, especially on music. It doesn't help on movie audio either IMO. The true surround mode may be called simply dolby surround or matrix surround, something like that. The delay is shut off and the rear speakers are fed mainly L-R. They mix the sound for that purpose. In the right mode, no delay just the matrix mode, you can watch Days Of Thunder and as the cars go around the track, the sound does as well. This is all derived from the front two channels actually, unless you use a digital input. Believe it or not, that mode is actually forty year old technology, dating back to the old quadrophonic systems. However that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it.
I'm somewhat a purist that way. Adding digital delay is not high fidelity. Simply remixing the sound is. Now a blue ray ? Well I know that DVDs are capable of audio modes that are better than a CD, blurays might even be better, but can you hear the difference ? Maybe, maybe not. That has to do with your system, and that system includes your ears. Some people hear better than others, and it goes downhill with age for everyone.
If you really want to test the system I could send you a copy of the Boston Acoustics Woofer Cooker. No shit, that's what it's called, and I can see,,,,, err hear why. It's very good for finding anything that ain't nailed down :-)
I could go on about why I am unimpressed by most new speakers, it has to do with how they rate them, measure frequency response and such. The standard methods were changed in the 1970s or early 1980s, and result in better numbers.
One move they made - towards sub/sat systems was a good one. There is no real reason to have a woofer and a tweeter in the same cabinet. I recommend two subwoofers, one for each front channel, but the industry doesn't agree. Of course there is cost involved, but they could make more money selling two subwoofers per system rather than just one. There are technical reasons for this, other than the fact that I simply think they sound better.
Lemme know if you want the woofer cooker. Do it while the system is still under warranty. It really doesn't cook anything unless you turn it up too high. And why stop at one MP3 ? I could probably dig up a few things that'll really show the system off, surround wise. A couple of things come to mind, like Switchblade Symphony, a certain track by Queensryche, things like that. There are also a few things that showcase the faults in a sub/sat system, things that were mixed unconventionally. Certain oldies mainly.
Above all else, enjoy. For good or bad, they dragged me kicking and screaming into the digital age, but now that I am here........ Well I haven't played a CD in a long time, I don't even have or need a DVD player, except in a PC. Everything either plays off the net or a harddrive. Nothing ever gets scratched, and the sound quality is usually top notch. In fact even the video is usually good.
I think eventually everything will come from the (or a) PC. Eventually there will be no disks, tapes, or anything like them. It will all be harddrives, memory sticks like thumbdrives and things like that. In fact blurays are technically obsolete. There is a new format with capacity so high it can't even be used effectively by the normal consumer market. Look for those to hit the shelves sometime after real 3D TVs come out. IIRC what I read about it, it goes beyond the dual layer technology in DVDs now, and could be referred to as holographic, or depth multiplexing. I don't even remember the capacity, but it's huge.
But really, can you imagine scratching a disk that has perhaps fifty movies on it ?
T^T
|
|
|
|
