postjack Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 meh, hd700 or not, i'm not going to spend whatever they're going to charge for it to own one. after i get my dac-ah, i'm going to call it quits on headphone stuff and focus my attention on speakers and home theater stuff. speakers good, HT bad.
ojnihs Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 speakers good, HT bad. what's wrong with ht?
JBLoudG20 Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 speakers good, HT bad. How else do you get HT?
ojnihs Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 blu-ray is just not blu-ray without that 5.1...or with a sweet ass 2.1 system at least
bhd812 Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 Any HT will suck compared to a nicely set up room with 2 channel..no chance to come close.
JBLoudG20 Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 Blu-ray with 7.2 :drool: On a 102" screen.. that's at my buddies house
JBLoudG20 Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 Any HT will suck compared to a nicely set up room with 2 channel..no chance to come close. For movies? Sorry buddy.
deepak Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 Any HT will suck compared to a nicely set up room with 2 channel..no chance to come close. For movies, unless the movie has a sweet two channel mix (Star Wars laserdisc) surround sound ftw!
tom_hankins Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 meh, hd700 or not, i'm not going to spend whatever they're going to charge for it to own one. after i get my dac-ah, i'm going to call it quits on headphone stuff and focus my attention on speakers and home theater stuff. I'll still buy a pr.(probably wont use them unless something in my speaker system goes down) if they come out with a new model over the 650.
bhd812 Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 For movies? Sorry buddy. Yes for movies... don't be sorry, one day when you hear a 2 channel throwing almost 360 around you then you will understand. until then follow the rest of the sheep and what your told by the market place what to believe. remember to follow their suggestion to absorb also, nothing like killing out the point of your speakers like that!
deepak Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 I think everyone meant movies when they were talking about Blu-Ray... But I agree two channel for music.
tom_hankins Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 Any HT will suck compared to a nicely set up room with 2 channel..no chance to come close. Not true. No, make that so, so, so, so, not true.
JBLoudG20 Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 Yes for movies... don't be sorry, one day when you hear a 2 channel throwing almost 360 around you then you will understand. until then follow the rest of the sheep and what your told by the market place what to believe. remember to follow their suggestion to absorb also, nothing like killing out the point of your speakers like that! Wow. I have heard a good 7 channel, and I have a decent two channel setup. There is no comparison for movies. I am once again convinced your ears are shit. Granted I much prefer 2 chan for music (unless it a cool DVD-A dic like the Blue Man discs), but 2 channel doenst hold a candle in a movie environment.
bhd812 Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 I understand where you people are coming from and why your saying it. the problem is until you have lived the experience you can never gain an ounce of idea to what i say. the sad part is with thought like you and 99% of the audio market has you will never come close to the experience, your traveling down the wrong path only cause of what you been told was "right". I could tell you where to go and what to read but my words will just fall on dead ears. i am now in the middle where i don't wanna give up the flashy "you must buy this" way but I understand what giving it up could do... only cause i have heard it before, go to Micheal Green audio site and see if there are any of these setups in your area from members on there, once you live that moment you will then just begin to understand why i am saying all of this. hopefully one day i will have the space and money to let you all hear what i am talking about. the bad part is it's not as much about money but the idea to accept the wrong path i have walked down.
tom_hankins Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 I understand where you people are coming from and why your saying it. the problem is until you have lived the experience you can never gain an ounce of idea to what i say. the sad part is with thought like you and 99% of the audio market has you will never come close to the experience, your traveling down the wrong path only cause of what you been told was "right". I could tell you where to go and what to read but my words will just fall on dead ears. i am now in the middle where i don't wanna give up the flashy "you must buy this" way but I understand what giving it up could do... only cause i have heard it before, go to Micheal Green audio site and see if there are any of these setups in your area from members on there, once you live that moment you will then just begin to understand why i am saying all of this. hopefully one day i will have the space and money to let you all hear what i am talking about. the bad part is it's not as much about money but the idea to accept the wrong path i have walked down. The one who needs to get out and listen is you. I have owned and had the pleasure of spending time with some of the best audio 2-channel systems out there over the last 30 years. I have also in the last year listened to music and watched music DVDs on three 7.1 systems that are nothing short of stunning. So just because you have not heard a multi channel system that can compete with the high end two channel does not mean they are not out there.
bhd812 Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 again like i said before you can not understand what i am saying. until you have experienced it then and only then will you get the idea. the only reason why 5.1, 7.1, dts, sacd, etc and etc is made is to keep you in the market and keep you buying. if you ever heard the 2 channel of what i am talking about you would ask yourself why are 8 speakers needed when you can do it with two? why would you need different encoding for a number of channels when any old cd or record with the right room can do the same thing? ever sit someone that's not into audio down and have them listen to a 2 channel speaker setup when they turn to you and ask where the center channel is cause the hear the vocals in the center? now imagine your sitting in the chair and asking me where the 7.1 speakers are... actually when i heard the setup i actually envisioned every air molecule to be a separate speaker on a separate channel..at least that was the first impression of my experience. crazy, yes i know it sounds but again.. until you experience it you just won't get it..
postjack Posted January 4, 2008 Author Report Posted January 4, 2008 what's wrong with ht? just a personal opinion. I'm not nearly passionate enough about movies to warrant dumping the kind of cash into HT that I do into 2-channel audio. Music is where its at for me. I do have an HT, but the entire thing ran ~$1500 new, HDTV included.
JBLoudG20 Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 actually when i heard the setup i actually envisioned every air molecule to be a separate speaker on a separate channel..at least that was the first impression of my experience. I believe you were on LSD, not listening to a 2 channel setup.
grawk Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 No, the advantage of a 5.1 or 7.1 system is you don't have to have the perfect room with the perfect treatments and perfect speakers and perfect amp to get a seriously fucking immersive experience. Yes, if you have complete control over your listening environment, you can do better with your entire budget in the 2 channels. If you don't, surround is better. And given an unlimited budget, surround is better. again like i said before you can not understand what i am saying. until you have experienced it then and only then will you get the idea. the only reason why 5.1, 7.1, dts, sacd, etc and etc is made is to keep you in the market and keep you buying. if you ever heard the 2 channel of what i am talking about you would ask yourself why are 8 speakers needed when you can do it with two? why would you need different encoding for a number of channels when any old cd or record with the right room can do the same thing? ever sit someone that's not into audio down and have them listen to a 2 channel speaker setup when they turn to you and ask where the center channel is cause the hear the vocals in the center? now imagine your sitting in the chair and asking me where the 7.1 speakers are... actually when i heard the setup i actually envisioned every air molecule to be a separate speaker on a separate channel..at least that was the first impression of my experience. crazy, yes i know it sounds but again.. until you experience it you just won't get it..
tom_hankins Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 again like i said before you can not understand what i am saying. until you have experienced it then and only then will you get the idea. the only reason why 5.1, 7.1, dts, sacd, etc and etc is made is to keep you in the market and keep you buying. if you ever heard the 2 channel of what i am talking about you would ask yourself why are 8 speakers needed when you can do it with two? why would you need different encoding for a number of channels when any old cd or record with the right room can do the same thing? ever sit someone that's not into audio down and have them listen to a 2 channel speaker setup when they turn to you and ask where the center channel is cause the hear the vocals in the center? now imagine your sitting in the chair and asking me where the 7.1 speakers are... actually when i heard the setup i actually envisioned every air molecule to be a separate speaker on a separate channel..at least that was the first impression of my experience. crazy, yes i know it sounds but again.. until you experience it you just won't get it.. I have heard and been enjoying high end two channel since my first good sysem in 1973. I would not have the $$$ it would cost for a benz invested in my system now if I have not been moved by what it can do for me. I have a system that does it on a daily basis in my house. Your statement was that no HT can ever come come close to good two channel. Your wrong. Does it take 5.1 or 7.1 for great music. No. Can you have a home theatre that can double for music on the same level as great two channel. Yes.
ojnihs Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 so billy, you're against 5.1, 7.1, surround sound because you can get just as good sound from a two channel system and you think that the market is just trying to screw with us into spending more money to get "surround" benefits? but the real question is, how much do you have to spend in a two-channel system to get this "experience" that you constantly bring up? some of us don't have that kind of cash sitting around and would rather spend some on a cheaper 5.1 system than dish out for a great two-channel system.
Thelonious Monk Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 just a personal opinion. I'm not nearly passionate enough about movies to warrant dumping the kind of cash into HT that I do into 2-channel audio. And it's not as if you need some expensive HT to enjoy a good movie anyway, right?
bhd812 Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 No, the advantage of a 5.1 or 7.1 system is you don't have to have the perfect room with the perfect treatments and perfect speakers and perfect amp to get a seriously fucking immersive experience. Yes, if you have complete control over your listening environment, you can do better with your entire budget in the 2 channels. If you don't, surround is better. And given an unlimited budget, surround is better. actually the experience does not cost really anything, acoustics is free. its not about the amp, the speakers, etc. again you have been told that but you have been told wrong. it's about how it all works together, not the brand name, not the design of any single component, not any of that shit. for example when you buy a buy a new mechanical watch you don't walk in to the store and care about the balance wheel, the set wheels, the winding pinion, etc. out of all the 190 separate tiny little pieces inside a mechanical watch you don't care about any single one! why? cause it's the Entire movement that matters which means all 190 pieces working together and how they do it. as far as cost goes you could probably have a setup that will give you such an experience of what i am talking about for maybe couple hundred dollars...the price is not the problem. its first realizing what an experience is and then getting all 190 pieces of you system to work perfectly TOGETHER. and that includes every single piece from what is behind you walls to letting the resonances in you transport free travel and not be stopped by the case of the cdp... visit the site i told you all many times to go and just read. what i say sounds nuts until you understand it..and you can not until you experience it.
Dusty Chalk Posted January 4, 2008 Report Posted January 4, 2008 Any HT will suck compared to a nicely set up room with 2 channel..no chance to come close.No, not "any" -- a properly set up HT is better than a properly set up 2 channel, the only problem is, that's very hard to do. But I guarantee you, once you hear a nice surround system, and you're tricked into believing you're surrounded by wood sprites (a very nice use of surround in the movie Princess Mononoke), you'd be a believer.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now