Thanks MoonDrifter. It seems the general consensus is that a high-end AV amp or surround speakers aren’t essential which is very good news! My only other concern is the DAC as I mentioned in my reply to Innocent_Bystander. At presnt it’s a Chord Qutest which really has vastly added to the impact from movies etc. Obviously with an AV amp it would be using the DAC in that for all channels so I would be compromising the sound of the front L and R compared to the Qutest.
1 Like
Wow! I was completely unaware of this! Haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere in reviews. I need to investigate further…
2 Likes
Indeed. I’m a big fan of Loewe but most people focus only on specs and price (like the hifi industry where watts and price matter).
It’s the klangbar mr 3 I think.
1 Like
Movies for quite some time have had much more sound effects out of rear and side speakers and more so with ATMOS sound tracks with many more speakers, so rears in a 5.1 system are very important.
Surround sound DAC’s in good AV Amps are very good and are obviously optimised for the surround sound so if you buy a good AV Amp I dont think you need to worry too much for movie sound performance.
Maybe go demo a few to see how they now sound/perform to give you more confidence.
1 Like
HI, looking at your HT set up your AV amp cost around £500. I’m thinking that maybe I don’t need to go as far as the £1K Sony then. Maybe just a £500 Sony or Marantz. I see your DAC is a DAVE (wow!). Have you ever tried routing the sound through this, ie. two channel only? I’m just curious as through my Qutest it sounds really excellent so through your DAVE it must be considerably better. You must notice a huge drop in overall quality using your AV amp instead surely? Or maybe this doesn’t matter as it’s compensated for by the surround experience?
Yes, literally! When I went to audition TT, against my Hugo. While at the dealer’s I succumbed to his suggestion to also hear Dave while I was there. I had no desires that way at all, but It was a real "wow” moment - literally, as my cellist son who had come with me uttered that word just a couple of bars into the first piece, echoing exactly what I was feeling. He had no idea about the kit we were listening to, just that I was comparing different things. (As an aside, knowing my system might have made you look slightly differently on at leats one of my posts in the exchanges we had in another thread over the past few days!)
Unfortunately my AV receiver has no digital outputs to use to feed the two main channels via Dave, so I am stuck doing the way I do unless I change for a different receiver. Something to consider if I ever want and can justify the cost of upping things. Music listening from my collection using the hifi system definitely sounds a lot better than anything AV - but when playing AV material the video compensates, when best compromise is feeding the two main channels via audio cable to a separate preamp and into power amp (as opposed to Dave into power amp).
I am in no doubt that the AV experience could be vastly improved with a better receiver, including link to Dave, and with better surround speakers, and with 4K projector - but what I have provides immersive enjoyable experience, and with my major spend to date having been focussed on my primary interest of music replay, I am not sure whether or when I will progress these. But certainly something for you to have awareness while making your choices: if budget is a factor then perhaps the key initial thing would be finding an AV receiver with digital main channel outputs that you could feed to Qutest, while other things like quality of surround speakers can all be upgraded later. Buying surround speakers secondhand can of course save a fortune, ditto receiver if anything suitable available that way.
Thanks IB. Being retired the DAVE is simply beyond me but if I was say 10 yrs younger then I would be going after it for sure - I wish!
I didn’t know that there were any AV receivers with a digital out for the front channels. I’ve only ever seen front pre-outs for integration with an existing stereo system. If I could get an AV amp with a digital out for the front chanels and route that to the Qutest then that would be the perfect solution for me. Do you know of any models that have this, that are not stupidly expensive (for my purposes that means an absolute max of around £1.5K)?
I couldn’t take the other thread very seriously in the end. I got a bit beligerant - sorry. No hard feelings I hope.
I’m now retired so expensive AV unlikely… I’m not aware of AV receivers with digital outputs for the main channels, never having looked, but I would hope/expect there might be such a thing. Maybe others on here might be able to help.
No hard feelings re other thread.
1 Like
I’m lucky enough to have snagged one of the (pretty rare, I think) AV-1 units built by Naim. I use it to feed an NAP250 for my rear sound loudspeakers.
It’s a complicated set-up, but it all sounds marvellous when all six QUAD ESL57 panels are in play
(I have commented before that this must be one of Naim’s least known products. Which is a shame, as it’s bl**dy marvellous!)
2 Likes
Hi Graham, I’ve heard of it but never heard of anyone actually owning one! Surround using the Quads must be something quite special!
Come and have a listen, if you’re ever in Brighton.
1 Like
Im not aware of any AV Amps that have digital outputs and if some do they probably output the whole multi-channel signal rather than just the front L & R, I dont know why a AV Amp would want to output a digital signal when its got its own onboard DACs, does not make too much sense to me when good quality AV Amps already give you analogue PreOuts for Stereo Amp connection.
I have sent a digital signal from my 4K TV to my Lumin P1’s DACs both via HDMI ARC and optical digital output and both signals are received/processed at stereo 16/48 and sound really good, I use it mostly when Im streaming Tidal music videos or the satellite TV MTV music channels.
I have not bothered listening to movies that route as it would be stereo only and I have the AV Amp in the system for movies at 5.1 which is so much better for movies.
1 Like
For TV and movies it was always true the great stereo beats mediocre surround. However, the quality of surround options has improved greatly since the 90s and these days I’d say that great stereo beats aTV with built-in surround but not a dedicated solution.
I have some very decent stereo systems but I also have ATMOS 7.1.4 with a Denon amp ans on-wall/ceiling speakers and also a basic Bose soundbar with Blutooth sub. Even the soundbar is prefferable for TV over the stereo. Centre locked dialogue and ambience really helps. I had a not too shabby Linn/Yamaha 5.1 system in the 90s. The soundbar gives a more coherent presentation than that did.
I’d alway opt to keep Surround and stereo systems separate. The smooth consistence of panning between matched speakers, even cheap ones, often beats a high end mashup of mismatched speakers and amps. If you have zero space, a soundbar. If you have a little space or an awkward room, a satellite and sub package. I used a Bose 5.1 speaker package for 15 years but with decent amps in cramped quarters and it was great.
If you enjoy an evening in front of the TV, or even if you just struggle to catch all the dialogue, I think surround is worth it. And if you can’t accommodate any more than a soundbar that will still be worthwhile.
1 Like
I think this is an interesting question. As you all hopefully appreciate the differences in performance achievable with 2 channel (ie better amplifies and better speakers sound better, more believable and more entertaining). It wont be a surprise exactly the same applies to home cinema and lots of cheap speakers can and will sound like a lot of cheap speakers. One thing that in my view for Cinema, depending on the content and film ofcourse, is critical is getting good well integrated low frequencies and that means subs. For a compelling sound with a TV, if I was starting from scratch I do think I might be tempted to explore 2 channel as a base. For a projectors then multichannel is the only really way to do it justice
One thing that is worth looking into is ATMOS and how that is dealt with as the content not mapped to base channels (object channels, provided to the processor with information but not mapped) are ignored with any analogue out solution for example. So I miss this with a 7.5.0 set up. Hence looking for non ATMOS tracks where possible. Later solutions should deal with suitable mapping and redirection but a lot don’t without a processor. 90% of processors don’t sound very good to my ears.
Nothing wrong with very good 2.1 solutions, in fact they can be excellent. Quite a lot left lacking with cheap 7.1.4 for example
3 Likes
You seem to be confirmimg what my general feeling was, ie. better to do it really well with 2 channel than to drag it all down with so-so surround.
I’m happy with 2 channel, and just wondered what I might be missing. But an expensive surround set up is out of the question for us. So I think, for us, the answer is definitely just stick with 2 channel.
2 Likes
Like all things HiFi and AV the more you spend the better the equipment and thus results you are going to get, so I would tend to agree that optimising/sticking with your 2 channel is probably better than going for a cheap surround system.
I remember being really happy with my music video and concert VHS tapes being played through my stereo system back in the days before DVDs and the current technology is so much better than that for AV stereo systems.
1 Like
Thanks MoonDrifter. Another relevant factor for me is that being born in 1960 I grew up through the 60’s and 70’s and it is then that I did most of my cinema going and saw some great movies. The vast majority were presented in mono. No surround then, only in special cases like Sensurround presentations (Earthquake, Rollercoaster).Stereo was just starting to make an appearance. So I don’t associate surround sound with the cinematic experience.
Younger folk who have grown up through the Dolby surround era will have experienced some of their most memorable cinematic moments with this. So having only stereo for movies at home probably seems lacking I would guess.
I think Star Wars in 1977 heralded mainstream stereo in all cinemas that showed it, and very rapidly spread. But there certainly were stereo/multichannel movies long before that, three in particular coming to mind that I saw: Fantasia (Disney) in late 60s, Woodstock when originally released (1970), and Tommy (1975). However my understanding was that indeed it wasn’t until Star Wars in 1977 that stereo/multichannel filtered down to become the norm in virtually all cinemas, and possibly was the film that introduced three dimensional sound effects.
Virtually every mainstream film since then has been been multichannel, or so it seems, with action movies all packed full of noise effects needing a sub - and that is using a sub differently from the bottom octaves in music replay, usually much higher level not balanced, so full range hifi speakers, or smaller hifi speakers with subs designed and set up for music, might not be as effective when the film wants to shake, rumble and blast you out of your seat! That is where I came from introducing a (low budget) surround system, and it works very well for movies generally, combining with my cinema-size (relatively speaking) screen and darkened room to give a real cinema feel - but comfortable, and without annoying customers around! But it is noticeably limiting with material where the music is a prime part, which is where my hybrid came in.
2 Likes
I was never really attracted to action sci-fi movies like Star Wars so that probably explains why I didn’t experience multi-channel in the late 70’s. I recall seeing the original Halloween in 1978 and pretty certain that it was mono - but it was a low budget independant film (John Carpenter). Also recall "The Shout’ the same year with Alan Bates, Susanaah York and John Hurt and that was definitely stereo.
The small provisional cinemas where I lived were definitely only equipped for mono. I say ‘small’ but they were far larger than the typical multi-screen auditoriums you now find.
My wife and I went to the cinema a few years ago, just before the pandemic broke. We hadn’t been before that for around 20 years! I was truly shocked at both the small size of the auditorium and by its extremely basic nature. No curtains across the screen, no attempt made at any sort of decoration. It looked like a basic small lecture theatre with a screen! Guess I’m well out of touch!
When I put my first satellite TV system in, in the UK in the mid/late 80’s, I upgraded my TV at that time and had stereo out of the SAT TV Box/TV into my stereo system and watched TV/Movies that way and it was very good at the time along with the stereo out from the VHS Player also into the stereo system, I had to have a switch box to switch audio inputs as my stereo system did not have enough connections back then.
What totally blew me away was going to a HiFi/AV dealers in Norwich in the early/mid 90’s and watching/listening to Terminator 2 on a Laser Disc with full surround sound in their demo room, I remember it like it was yesterday and knew straight away that I had to have a surround system for movies going forward and have had them and upgraded them ever since that time.
Good/very good surround systems are just stunning for movies and really enhance the enjoyment of watching the movie, they engross/envelope you into the action on the screen and you can now get older movies being re-released on 4K BluRay to take advantage of modern AV/surround systems.
Good luck with your system going forward, maybe a subwoofer on your stereo system is worth looking into as this may also enhance your music listening as well as movies, if your stereo amp has a subwoofer output.
1 Like