Bose makes some decent sounding stuff, but you can get a lot better for the money and you can get much better speakers if you want to spend more as well. But if you are looking to spend less, I'd recomend focusing on a respectable setup well less speakers instead of spreading your cash thinner across a 7.1 setup.
is 7.1 surround noticeable from 5.1?
- Thread starter Legend
- Start date
randycat99
Veteran
I strongly agree about fortifying for better speakers before looking toward more speakers (no comment about the Bose part, though)! Until you have spent as much as you can justify on the fronts, centers, and sub, then adding more and more speakers is never going to "improve" the sound.
DemoCoder said:
To that I would add the U-571 depth charge scene, my favorite room shaking scene, especially because the crew is rigged for ultra-quiet (the contemporary term) and then BOOM! quiet...BOOM! BOOM! GREAT scene. I will also go with the obligatory ""No Comment" on BOSE.
7.1? no. I don't think it's worth while. AFAIK xbox 360 games use only 5.1 anyway. 6.1 may be a good option. Most amps support 6.1, it's just the speakers that cost more.
When it comes to buying, what I'd recommend you do is find a friend with a good ear, who is not biased to any perticular brand. This, unfortunatly, is very difficult though.
Find all the good HiFi dealers in town, (ie, dedicated HiFi shops), and have a look at what they can offer you in your price range, prefereably find shops that also sell to niche markets (say DJs) because these guys are more likly to actually know about the gear they sell.
Ideally you want end-of-line equipment. This stuff is rare of course, but if you can get it, you can save a lot. I paid $3700 for my $11000 retail system because it was all end of line, and were competing with 'this years' products. This meant that some of it doesn't match, but who cares about that.
You should then narrow it down by using web sites such as audioholics.com (audioreview.audioholics.com). But do NOT take the reviews as fact, simply see if there is a pattern to them. If they get a mix of 5/5 and 1/5 then chances are there is something amiss. If they consistently get 4/5+, then they are good.
Then, choose some source material. Burn a CD with high quality music, preferably stuff you like to listen to.
What I burnt was quite a mix. I included a number of acoustic tracks, a bunch of cafe-del-mar, a bit of techno etc. What you want to do when playing is to focus on one perticular instrument. With a good setup, when you do this, that instrument should become very clear. Even if the overall sound it isn't clear, when you foucs it should. Bass guitars are a good example here, and often get muffled in a poorer system.
Take everything the salesman says with a bag of salt.
You basically need to spend time with each system. Listen. Be critical. Then listen to another system in the same shop (eg, different speakers, same amp). This will give you a good idea of the strengths/weaknesses of each.
As for bose, it's a hard one. The shops are setup in such a way as to optimise for the speakers as much as possible (while still looking like a normal room). They will also *never* have competing speakers in the same room, these, AFAIK, are requirements to be a distributor of bose gear. Also, the music they play will have very little midrange (which is generally the major weakness of a tweater/sub combo), and they will play them at their distortion limit. I did demo bose gear, and sure it sounded ok with voices, but as soon as complex sound came in, eg, the audience clapping, it fell apart spectacualy. It was actually painful.
Bose sales people are also famous for their hard sell tactics. After saying I didn't like the sound I was actually told "well 100s of thousands of people disagree with you so you are completly wrong.". I told him I had ~$2500 to spend and he tried to sell me a $8500 system. I can understand the attraction of a small, sleek system, as this is an area most hifi manufacturers ignore. It's like a gift wrapped dead rabbit. Sure it may look nice and be fun to recieve, but at the end of the day it's not going to be satisfying.
I'm not saying all other hifi dealers are honest, or all other products are better, just bose are quite consistently bad in these areas.
Also consider second hand. But always check the speaker cones and give a careful listen first. If they make scratching noises as soon as you gently push them in/out then they are fried.
When it comes to buying, what I'd recommend you do is find a friend with a good ear, who is not biased to any perticular brand. This, unfortunatly, is very difficult though.
Find all the good HiFi dealers in town, (ie, dedicated HiFi shops), and have a look at what they can offer you in your price range, prefereably find shops that also sell to niche markets (say DJs) because these guys are more likly to actually know about the gear they sell.
Ideally you want end-of-line equipment. This stuff is rare of course, but if you can get it, you can save a lot. I paid $3700 for my $11000 retail system because it was all end of line, and were competing with 'this years' products. This meant that some of it doesn't match, but who cares about that.
You should then narrow it down by using web sites such as audioholics.com (audioreview.audioholics.com). But do NOT take the reviews as fact, simply see if there is a pattern to them. If they get a mix of 5/5 and 1/5 then chances are there is something amiss. If they consistently get 4/5+, then they are good.
Then, choose some source material. Burn a CD with high quality music, preferably stuff you like to listen to.
What I burnt was quite a mix. I included a number of acoustic tracks, a bunch of cafe-del-mar, a bit of techno etc. What you want to do when playing is to focus on one perticular instrument. With a good setup, when you do this, that instrument should become very clear. Even if the overall sound it isn't clear, when you foucs it should. Bass guitars are a good example here, and often get muffled in a poorer system.
Take everything the salesman says with a bag of salt.
You basically need to spend time with each system. Listen. Be critical. Then listen to another system in the same shop (eg, different speakers, same amp). This will give you a good idea of the strengths/weaknesses of each.
As for bose, it's a hard one. The shops are setup in such a way as to optimise for the speakers as much as possible (while still looking like a normal room). They will also *never* have competing speakers in the same room, these, AFAIK, are requirements to be a distributor of bose gear. Also, the music they play will have very little midrange (which is generally the major weakness of a tweater/sub combo), and they will play them at their distortion limit. I did demo bose gear, and sure it sounded ok with voices, but as soon as complex sound came in, eg, the audience clapping, it fell apart spectacualy. It was actually painful.
Bose sales people are also famous for their hard sell tactics. After saying I didn't like the sound I was actually told "well 100s of thousands of people disagree with you so you are completly wrong.". I told him I had ~$2500 to spend and he tried to sell me a $8500 system. I can understand the attraction of a small, sleek system, as this is an area most hifi manufacturers ignore. It's like a gift wrapped dead rabbit. Sure it may look nice and be fun to recieve, but at the end of the day it's not going to be satisfying.
I'm not saying all other hifi dealers are honest, or all other products are better, just bose are quite consistently bad in these areas.
Also consider second hand. But always check the speaker cones and give a careful listen first. If they make scratching noises as soon as you gently push them in/out then they are fried.
Last edited by a moderator:
I recommend checking out HydrogenAudio forums for non-biased scientific critique. They don't rely on human subjective listening tests, but demand people use ABX and measuring devices. There is way way way too much bias and bullshit and 'brand' effect in speaker reviews. It's like wine tasting before blinding was introduced. French judges seemed to always pick french wines, until it was blinded, they amazingly, other countries started winning. Alot of speaker reviews sound similar. I had to laugh at one speaker review that claimed by personal listening tests that a certain speaker was better than any ever manufactured, but when other sites measured it, it had absolutely *horrible* frequency response characteristics.
!eVo!-X Ant UK
Banned
Just get a denon 3805 amp and some Moniter audio silver series speakers and you'll be sorted
!eVo!-X Ant UK
Banned
Legend said:
As good as all-in-1 units are for value, they are piss poor in terms of performance.
Separates is the way, give me a budget and i'll make some recomendations
I am getting the set-up along with a 1080p 40" LCD TV (Bravia) which costs around $3200.
I have no idea how much 'equally good' speakers cost. I originally based my asuption on the all-in-one set-ups I mentioned which cost around $300. but seeing the individual set-up is better, how is twice that amount fair? I am no audio geek really, so I am not pushing my self with getting something professional or very expensive, but at the same time, I don't want to pay for a set up only to find out that everybody else have a better sound experience because I didn't stretch it a bit. you think something around $600 can get something decent enough to last me at least a decade before I feel the need to upgrade again?
I have no idea how much 'equally good' speakers cost. I originally based my asuption on the all-in-one set-ups I mentioned which cost around $300. but seeing the individual set-up is better, how is twice that amount fair? I am no audio geek really, so I am not pushing my self with getting something professional or very expensive, but at the same time, I don't want to pay for a set up only to find out that everybody else have a better sound experience because I didn't stretch it a bit. you think something around $600 can get something decent enough to last me at least a decade before I feel the need to upgrade again?
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me take the contrarian side then. I recommend the Onkyo HT-S7XX system, a receiver and 7.1 speakers (http://www.crutchfield.com/S-xPZkIXIgNhH/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?g=37600&I=580HTS790B). The reason is two-fold: 1) It's a really good system for the money. Not only do you get the whole package, but you also get a nice component video switcher, perfect for the gamer.
But the second part is probably more germane: I think it's better to start with something so that you know what it is you want to shoot for. If you get the inexpensive system and find that it's good enough, you just saved yourself 1,000 dollars or more. But otherwise, it's cheap enough that as you find yourself replacing parts of it, you can throw out the old ones (or better, just re-purpose them) without feeling like you wasted money.
I did this exact thing a few months back. About the only thing I may end up upgrading is the subwoofer. Or, I may get tired of the surround speakers being overly large and replace them with lower profile ones. But the bottom line is that as far as my ears can tell, this system is all I need.
Anyway, just a thought
But the second part is probably more germane: I think it's better to start with something so that you know what it is you want to shoot for. If you get the inexpensive system and find that it's good enough, you just saved yourself 1,000 dollars or more. But otherwise, it's cheap enough that as you find yourself replacing parts of it, you can throw out the old ones (or better, just re-purpose them) without feeling like you wasted money.
I did this exact thing a few months back. About the only thing I may end up upgrading is the subwoofer. Or, I may get tired of the surround speakers being overly large and replace them with lower profile ones. But the bottom line is that as far as my ears can tell, this system is all I need.
Anyway, just a thought
Can I ask what the audible difference is between moderate and expensive systems is? I've a good ear for music and can tell the difference between good and bad speakers etc., but it seems to me the difference in quality between medium cost solutions and top-end is probably negligable, especially to most people who are hapy with poor MP3 quality sources.
I tend to listen to music through headphones. I've a set of Sony MDR-CD380 cans and am perfectly happy with the quality. They are far from the highest priced headphones possible and I think to myself, 'why spend 4x or more on a pair of headphones when these are very good? What will that extra expenditure get me?'
In the case of surround sound speaker systems, once you get past the low quality equipment and are up into the diminishing returns, what actual difference does it make that users can perceive? Is there background hiss or bass swamping on this middle-range equipment (and can't some such flaws be counteracted by EQ)? Most people never have the chance to experience an expensive piece of equipment first hand, especially in the intended residence. I've never had the chance to listen to a £100 pair of headphnes to compare the difference with my own. I wonder how many more expensive solutions are sold on numbers and marketting alone (Gigaflops comparisons valid ) where the customer pays more to 'be on the safe side' rather than pay less for a perfectly fine solution for the fear of they're not getting good enough. You get the same with people buying PCs, buying a faster PC than they'll ever need for what they use it for. Though in the cae of PCs the difference in price is often so small it's worth it on economics. But on HiFi and TV equipment there's no limit to how much you can spend. £15,000 on a CD player is possible! Is it ever really worth it?
I tend to listen to music through headphones. I've a set of Sony MDR-CD380 cans and am perfectly happy with the quality. They are far from the highest priced headphones possible and I think to myself, 'why spend 4x or more on a pair of headphones when these are very good? What will that extra expenditure get me?'
In the case of surround sound speaker systems, once you get past the low quality equipment and are up into the diminishing returns, what actual difference does it make that users can perceive? Is there background hiss or bass swamping on this middle-range equipment (and can't some such flaws be counteracted by EQ)? Most people never have the chance to experience an expensive piece of equipment first hand, especially in the intended residence. I've never had the chance to listen to a £100 pair of headphnes to compare the difference with my own. I wonder how many more expensive solutions are sold on numbers and marketting alone (Gigaflops comparisons valid
) where the customer pays more to 'be on the safe side' rather than pay less for a perfectly fine solution for the fear of they're not getting good enough. You get the same with people buying PCs, buying a faster PC than they'll ever need for what they use it for. Though in the cae of PCs the difference in price is often so small it's worth it on economics. But on HiFi and TV equipment there's no limit to how much you can spend. £15,000 on a CD player is possible! Is it ever really worth it?Shifty Geezer said:Can I ask what the audible difference is between moderate and expensive systems is? I've a good ear for music and can tell the difference between good and bad speakers etc., but it seems to me the difference in quality between medium cost solutions and top-end is probably negligable, especially to most people who are hapy with poor MP3 quality sources.
I tend to listen to music through headphones. I've a set of Sony MDR-CD380 cans and am perfectly happy with the quality. They are far from the highest priced headphones possible and I think to myself, 'why spend 4x or more on a pair of headphones when these are very good? What will that extra expenditure get me?'
In the case of surround sound speaker systems, once you get past the low quality equipment and are up into the diminishing returns, what actual difference does it make that users can perceive? Is there background hiss or bass swamping on this middle-range equipment (and can't some such flaws be counteracted by EQ)? Most people never have the chance to experience an expensive piece of equipment first hand, especially in the intended residence. I've never had the chance to listen to a £100 pair of headphnes to compare the difference with my own. I wonder how many more expensive solutions are sold on numbers and marketting alone (Gigaflops comparisons valid
It all depends what your used to listening to.
My stereo equipment (not 5.1) cost about $10,000+ (considerably more if I'd bought the amps new), and none of it would do particularly well in a pure numeric test.
I didn't just run out and buy $10,000 worth of equipment, it was built incrementally, I listened to every piece with every other piece.
Honestly for most people very expensive stereos aren't worth it, and in a lot of cases it's a status symbol, or a piece of furniture.
My two 5.1 setup cost significantly less, but audio is only one part of the movie experience to me.
The only real way to do a listening test tho is to listen to two speakers without knowing anything about them (even price, or specs), otherwise something as simple as the price can color your impressions no matter how objective you think you are. Plus, the more you pay, the more you will tend to believe you made the right choice (cognitive dissonance) and you can even internalize any justifications after the fact so you can no longer distinguish (you justify the music sounds better because it costs so much, and it actually *will* sound better to you later. This has been documented)
Last edited by a moderator:
I was basically looking for a 7.1 with optical audio outlets and DTS, Dolby Digital and Dolby Pro Logic II support.
but now, Nanotech brought to my attention HDMI as well. I know HDMI makes a difference visually, but should I wait for bargin priced HDMI enabled surround systems too or are they an overkill and a simple marketing feature that isn't worth a high price for? is it really that much difference in performance than optical audio?
thanks for the help guys, I really appreciate it. this discussion will really help me make a decision- and learn about audio gear as well
but now, Nanotech brought to my attention HDMI as well. I know HDMI makes a difference visually, but should I wait for bargin priced HDMI enabled surround systems too or are they an overkill and a simple marketing feature that isn't worth a high price for? is it really that much difference in performance than optical audio?
thanks for the help guys, I really appreciate it. this discussion will really help me make a decision- and learn about audio gear as well
HDMI is no different in peformace than optical audio, it uses the same digital signal. The difference is in video, where also uses digitial as opposed to component analog signals. But for $600 on the complete sound system, I highly doubt you'll find anything with HDMI support, let alone HDMI 1.3.
suffix that with "better it will sound *to you*" Other observers who did not pay the money or who may not be aware of the price of the system won't have cognitive dissonance, and hence may be more objective. Of course, they might already own a different system, with their own cognitive dissonance, and be apt to attack your purchasing decision. (Why didn't you buy the same $10,000 system I did! You're can't possibly sound as good as mind, cause I paid alot to buy the best!)
Legend said:I was basically looking for a 7.1 with optical audio outlets and DTS, Dolby Digital and Dolby Pro Logic II support.
but now, Nanotech brought to my attention HDMI as well. I know HDMI makes a difference visually, but should I wait for bargin priced HDMI enabled surround systems too or are they an overkill and a simple marketing feature that isn't worth a high price for? is it really that much difference in performance than optical audio?
thanks for the help guys, I really appreciate it. this discussion will really help me make a decision- and learn about audio gear as well
HDMI 1.3 WILL matter for sound with the new movie formats like DD+, Dolby TruHD, and DTS-HD. For HD DVD it won't matter because every HD DVD player is required to have onboard decoders. For BR playrs it matters because BR is not required to have onboard decoders. If you plan on getting a PS3 you may need a HDMI 1.3 receiver to decode the new audio formats.
NANOTEC said:
For BR, you don't. You just need IEEE1394/FireWire/iLink input on your A/V Receiver. Most Dolby/DTS receivers include this, because it is how SACD/DVD-A players route digital audio to A/V receivers. But Sony did something really stupid: They removed the iLink/Firewire/1394 port from the PS3. Not only won't FireWire cameras be able to plug into the PS3, but SACD/DVD-A/BD media won't be able to use it for audio output.
However, there will most definately be HDMI splitters on the market which extract the audio and route it to 1394. That's because of a the huge volume of AV receivers that don't have HDMI, and the fact that not everyone who buys an A/V receiver buys one with video switching capability. Many people buy audio-only AV receivers, so you'll need an external splitter device to extract the video/audio separately.
This is unlike the situation with XB360 where going DVI is harder because it's an analog to digital process, vs digital-to-digital.
Similar threads
