• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Blu-ray without the sound

CRXican

CRXican

Diamond Member
Just when I think I've gotten over the hurdle of deciding to hook up a Blu-ray player to a 720p TV, the idea of sound pops into my head.

Regular DVDs look great on my 42" Panny Plasma but I love big sound. Will I be wasting my time looking at an even more beautiful picture while I'm still hearing the sound through the weaksauce TV speaker?

 
I would definitely invest in a good set of speakers and a receiver before I made the upgrade to Blu-Ray.. It isn't really worth it otherwise.

 
I had a feeling that would be the answer I'd get, I just need some more convincing.

I actually have a good amount of cash for a decent setup right now. Problem is I'm still the kid (not so much) living at home and the space I have to work with is quite limited.
 
I disagree that it won't be worth it. I went from a DVD player to a PS3 on my 52" DLP, and I don't regret it at all. The difference is huge. I would love to add a sound system to it, but the gf didn't want speakers in the room that the set is in. I'll work on her this year.😛

Bottom line, the sound won't be any different than what you have now, but the picture will improve by quite a bit.
 
Well, I like big sound...so I say get the speaker setup. Something about a good surround sound system that makes it feel like your more at the theater than the improvement in picture quality.

When that isn't enough, get the butt kickers (bass shakers / tactile effects system) so that during scary movies not only do you see the monster jump out and hear a big sound, but you also feel it 🙂
 
If I do go for the audio, due to the room size and initial budget ($1,000 - $1,200) I plan on getting a fairly decent receiver with HDMI capability and either a 2.1 setup or a 3.1 setup. I want goooood speakers.
 
You have a good plan and that is what you should do. 5.1 is overrated for most people. Many audiophiles still swear by a good 2.1 setup.
 
Originally posted by: Paraguay11
You have a good plan and that is what you should do. 5.1 is overrated for most people. Many audiophiles still swear by a good 2.1 setup.
Click to expand...

2.1 for music, 5.1/7.1 for movies. I have a theater room with a 5.1 setup and my family room has a very nice 2 channel receiver for my music listening.

DVD-A in it's 5.1 channels is gimmicky to me.
 
One thing at a time for me.

Looks like the big debate is between these two receivers:

Pioneer VSX-1018AH-K

Onkyo TX-SR606
 
2.1 for music?!!!

Back on topic. Will you be buying much BR content? If not get the sound setup! You can enjoy your current movies in 'real' sound.

I just got a new setup and thespeajers make a HUGE different move experience. I thought the plasma speakers were pretty good on the th50pz81 but even using my dads 5yrs floor standers (eltax £150 ones, can't remember the model) it kikcks the crap out of the t plasma speakers and the sound sooo crap now!

I just bought the onkyo 606 and it is good t me hub I have noting t compare it to, but a lot of guys like it and it gets good reviews.

Koing
 
Technically it is not really 2.1. It is 2.0 where the subwoofer is receiving the low-passed signal from the stereo sound. 2.1 would mean you have fullrange speakers set to large and the receiver somehow outputted the LFE channel only to the subwoofer. However, for music, it would be unusual to find LFE encoded as such unless it was multichannel music. However, when downmixed to stereo, the signal would most likely be 2.0 (stereo).

This is a common misconception. Just FYI.
 
Originally posted by: Tiamat
Technically it is not really 2.1. It is 2.0 where the subwoofer is receiving the low-passed signal from the stereo sound. 2.1 would mean you have fullrange speakers set to large and the receiver somehow outputted the LFE channel only to the subwoofer. However, for music, it would be unusual to find LFE encoded as such unless it was multichannel music. However, when downmixed to stereo, the signal would most likely be 2.0 (stereo).

This is a common misconception. Just FYI.
Click to expand...

A hi fi puriest would have a heart attack at 2 speakers and a sub!! 2 speakers and a sub each would be better for the hi fi puriest 🙂

Koing
 
Originally posted by: Koing
Originally posted by: Tiamat
Technically it is not really 2.1. It is 2.0 where the subwoofer is receiving the low-passed signal from the stereo sound. 2.1 would mean you have fullrange speakers set to large and the receiver somehow outputted the LFE channel only to the subwoofer. However, for music, it would be unusual to find LFE encoded as such unless it was multichannel music. However, when downmixed to stereo, the signal would most likely be 2.0 (stereo).

This is a common misconception. Just FYI.
Click to expand...

A hi fi puriest would have a heart attack at 2 speakers and a sub!! 2 speakers and a sub each would be better for the hi fi puriest 🙂

Koing
Click to expand...

If you crossover at a low enough frequency (~ < 60 Hz) and place the subwoofer in such a spot as to not excite room vibrations that can cue its location (e.g. mid-wall between the stereo speakers rather than corners), the blend would be very excellent. With multiple mono subwoofers, careful placement can improve the linearity of the bass response within the room while increasing the dynamic headroom.

The arguments for stereo subwoofers is not compelling given the non-directionality of low bass frequencies and the room acoustics conditions. In fact, in most if not all cases, multiple mono subwoofers would produce superior dynamic headroom and bass linearity than L/R specific subwoofers especially when the mono subwoofers are placed in the spots that fit the room acoustics best rather than stereo subwoofers flanking their respective front speaker (many times which yield non-optimal bass).

 
I am running exactly what Tiamat is describing a faux 2.1 system where the reciever is LPF'ing to my sub.

 
Since this thread went a little off track, let me pose a question.

Assuming a budget of right around $1,000 and taking a look at the receivers I listed above. What speakers would you suggest for a good 2.1 or 3.1 setup?

Mainly concerned with movie playback (DVD) eventually Blu-ray as well. For the music I listen too, my PC speakers are fine.

Room is approx. 10x10 (might be 10x11 or 12 bedroom).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top