pouët.net

I'm actually not interested in surround for music.

I have a 40" LCD HDTV, a PS3 and a selection of my favourite films in blu-ray, so I am wondering if its worth investing in the audio setup a bit.

The TV is not in the centre of the wall (i'm not about to hang an expensive TV above my fireplace. Heat and electronics are not generally a good mix, and i don't really want wires going across the wall), and the sofa is against the wall, so it won't be perfect.

That's too bad, because he fucking rules.

In my experience sounds are easier to distinguish from each other if they are separated even slightly in the stereo field. Mono recordings easily become muddy when there are a lot of sounds going on. On the other hand, speakers on a computer desk are often very close to each other, so mostly it won't matter that much if your recording is monaural or stereo.

Or you could get 1,000 cinema/concert tickets for the same price. ;) Plus the popcorn.

Shouldn't you add to the list though that in order to REALLY get that total 5.1 experience, you not only need the sofa right in the middle of that square room that you don't actually have because rooms like that don't exist in the real world, you also need to sit in it and not move your head too much.

That's because it's all ones and zeros to pioneering digital artists like him. I bet he tosses in a mathematical way too.

doom: it's better to judge by the music, not the media bullshit. Otherwise you miss out on a lot.

@doom

Cinema tickets are very expensive, I doubt i could get 1,000 of them for what i spent on the PS3 & TV (and i can't play Motorstorm or LittleBigPlanet with a cinema ticket ;-), and its not like i can see any film i want at the cinema. I'd bloody love to watch the original Terminator and Die Hard films in a decent cinema.

guys, this is the mono thread, not the surround thread. :P

np: Aleksi Eeben - One Channel Music.sid

is there something to be said for acceptance of loss in production?

biological systems tend to be robust, with some redundancy and a lot of clingy-on-ness. this wouldn't work for executable art that requires byte-perfection to run, but would work for substrates of that art - where the original sound or image undergoes lossy processes (as long as the digital output remains an intact format, but the input can be a scan with coffee stains or birdshit all over it)

so then, if you can create a tune that sounds just fine played over one speaker or two, makes sense in an elevator or on laptop speakers, and sounds even better through a guitar amp on a rooftop - that's something of a triumph over the scary processes of degradation

it just wouldn't work for a lot of music, or a lot of production approaches and philosophies

so i know i've just described the lo-fi philosophy and added nothing new, but its easy to forget that lo-fi isn't a baseless fad - no matter what stupid kids with dumb retro hair pretend

Well no, but for what you'd spend on a home setup that is even remotely like a cinema experience, is what I'm saying. If you count the construction work required to get a suitable square room into your Victorian house, I'm sure the equivalent amount of cinema tickets would be even more considerable. ;)

But yeah, very few cinemas let you play Little Big Planet. Though, I did notice that that Odeon cinema in Bath shows old blockbusters every now and again. Donnie Darko was showing last week, for example. I'm sure Terminator and Die Hard will come up eventually.



I'll grant you that. I did hear that piece being talked about in that other thread and found it sterile and unarousing. The "amazing" video that went with it was about as exciting as any Winamp plugin, and frankly, anyone who refers to his house as a hard drive I cannot respect. :(

But maybe I'll give the music another try sometime.

Ahh, but i'm not trying to get a cinema experience. I'm realistic about my expectations. I just want to have a nice setup for watching my favourite films at home, and my Telly and PS3 provide a pretty good picture, i'm just asking if people think its worth getting a surround system as well.

Well then, my advice is at least avoid the cheap ones. And whichever one you get, expect it to be a lot less elegant and hassle-free than it looks in the shop. :)

Doom: I think for most people the idea isn't to get a full 'cinema experience' at home, but just to get a good movie watching experience. That's what I aimed for at least.. and it's way better than just normal telly. Actually, I'd say it's better than the cinema, the sound and screen are fine for watching a film, it's more comfortable, there's nobody talking all the way through or a bunch of kids arsing around, and no 8 foot tall bloke with an afro is going to sit in front of you. Plus there's a free bar and food, and a pause button if you need a piss.

No wonder cinema takings are down so much ;)

About bt: I've not heard any of his recent stuff, but his first few albums were great. Depends a lot on your taste in music of course, and if you listen to them now they won't sound so fresh as they're pretty old.

Now let's get back to the program:

If you are not using stereo for anything then you could save some space using mono. For some settings (demoshows on large PA systems) mono could even be the preferred choice.

However, if you need an argument for stereo sound, have a listen to D-Fast's track in the hidden part of Showtime 18. It really has space, and you can't achieve that in mono.

Also.. what's the point in saving some bytes for a demotrack? The size limits are way beyond the point where the mp3 size actually counted for anything. A typical demotrack would use 8-10 mb. That's not really a large percentage of a demo with a potential size of 64mb. Why degrade the experience?

Dunno if I agree on the 'avoid the cheap ones' suggestion actually.. just be aware that you're going to get what you pay for.

If you get a £100 surround system, it's not going to be great at all.. but it'll probably sound so much better than tv speakers that it's worth £100. Speaking £1000 on a setup will get you something that sounds good, but whether it's worth £900 more for a few games and the odd film is debatable.

I just realized an amiga user was participating in a hardware discussion.

Stereoscopic home video might be the wave of the future. But surround sound is surely not, if only for the already mentioned practical reasons.

stereo vision: maybe if glasses aren't required, and the viewing angle is wide. Otherwise, it'll be like surround: a fairly popular minority thing.

SHizZLE on pokemon mini sounds sweet on 1 channel.

psionice: But then compare the £100 surround system to a £100 amp + two three-way speakers solution. And/or do the same with the £1000 surround system. Two speakers and an amp may not seem as posh, but with the way you're forced to set up a surround system in an actual living room that won't look brilliant anyway. If I had £1000 to spend on a sound system I'd go for stereo myself.

Shifter: You really need to get laid.

http://www.iosono-sound.com/ / wavefield synthesis.
For quite some €uros ... :\

true, but, huh? he didn't post in this thread?

oh, and back on topic: i'm all in favour of mono. stereo is already way too difficult for me, let alone 5.1!

doom: depends on what you want. For movies + games, I'd say surround would be better, for any music definitely stereo for a lower price. At a higher price, not sure, maybe it's possible to get a decent surround sound system that does music well too.

Or, what I did (probably for around €1000 or so in total): get a good pair of stereo speakers, a surround amp and a pair of cheaper rear + centre speakers. Music is good (plus I have the option to listen in surround mode.. which is great for a few things, worse for most) and it's good for movies too (well, considering the room shape, which is a long way from ideal, but it's still much better than stereo).