High Def Forum
Thank you for visiting. This is our website archive. Please visit our main website by clicking the logo above.

Stereo vs. surround: And the winner is...

eHDMI
12-06-2009, 09:06 AM
If you listen to music over your iPod or computer, it's safe to say you're listening in stereo.

Cars are a different story; they can have speakers in all sorts of places, so I'll grant that music in the car may not be in stereo.

Story (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10408696-47.html)

rbinck
12-06-2009, 09:50 AM
You wonder if that is really his opinion or the love he has for his stereo system has clouded his thinking. I suppose if you don't like action films stereo is fine.

Then there is the thought of now that he has admitted his bias, how the opinions of his future and past reviews of surround systems will be received. If it were me, I would have kept my bias to myself.

Loves2Watch
12-06-2009, 09:54 AM
An untrained ear and a very un-subjective view. Of course surround sound sounds better than stereo...

He probably thinks MP3's are the best audio format.

rbinck
12-06-2009, 09:59 AM
An untrained ear and a very un-subjective view. Of course surround sound sounds better than stereo...

He probably thinks MP3's are the best audio format.
So you would not have a high opinion of his surround equipment reviews?

Loves2Watch
12-06-2009, 10:03 AM
So you would not have a high opinion of his surround equipment reviews?

No, not since he said that. It's amazing considering the high tech magazines he writes for...

oblioman
12-06-2009, 11:48 AM
his home equipment is probably bose, thus making his audio choices and opinions irrevelavent. (sorry rbinck)

Scottnot
12-06-2009, 12:03 PM
Yea, but . . . .

He never said that stereo was better than or superior to surround; what he did conclude was:
I'm not claiming 5.1-, 6.1-, or 7.1-multichannel sound is "bad"; not at all. In fact, I think the quality of movie surround mixes has steadily improved over the years. I listen to them when I'm reviewing gear all the time, but I don't need to hear surround at home. For me film is about the quality of the story, acting, and cinematography. The sound? Sure, it's extremely important, but it's there to support the picture.
Hardly sounds like a bias toward stereo except the acknowledgement that that's what most people still listen to.

rbinck
12-06-2009, 01:45 PM
his home equipment is probably bose, thus making his audio choices and opinions irrevelavent. (sorry rbinck)Sorry for what?

electrictroy
12-06-2009, 03:07 PM
QUOTE: "For me film is about the quality of the story, acting, and cinematography. The sound? Sure, it's extremely important, but it's there to support the picture."


I think sound is more important than cinematography. When I hear the Starship Enterprise rumble from the front to rear speakers, or if I'm playing a videogame and I hear someone sneaking-up behind me, that puts you *into* the experience.

Stereo can't do that. Neither can a flat image.

electrictroy
12-06-2009, 03:11 PM
P.S. I'm tired of tripping over the wires that lead to my rear speakers. Is there some gadget (preferably inexpensive) that can be used to convert them to wireles.

Loves2Watch
12-06-2009, 03:42 PM
P.S. I'm tired of tripping over the wires that lead to my rear speakers. Is there some gadget (preferably inexpensive) that can be used to convert them to wireles.

Why not run them through the ceiling?

oblioman
12-06-2009, 04:51 PM
Sorry for what?
Thought me read in a past post that you had one of those bose boombox's. me bad,,,maybe it was PFC.:D

rbinck
12-06-2009, 06:19 PM
Thought me read in a past post that you had one of those bose boombox's. me bad,,,maybe it was PFC.:D
I do have one, but that don't mean I think they are any good. When I was in the A/V business we sold a lot of Bose. Women love the damn things. Mine was a take back, so no cost to me and it rarely gets used.

So feel free to bash Bose in my presence and I'll do the same.

soupnazi
12-07-2009, 01:27 AM
What gives Guttenberg the authority to review surround sound equipment if he doesn't use surround sound at home. There's something fishy going on here.

I think the majority of people buying a receiver and speakers to listen to movies would buy a surround sound system over a 2 speaker stereo system. He is talking about for the purpose of watching/listening to movies. The people that listen to movies on their TV speakers don't want to spend the money or just don't care.

So again, stereo wins the popularity contest. And if you're watching movies on a portable device or computer, yup, you're listening to stereo.

Is it true that you can't listen to surround sound on your computer?

Loves2Watch
12-07-2009, 02:43 AM
Is it true that you can't listen to surround sound on your computer?

No, completely untrue as most modern day computers deliver multichannel sound. It does require a surround sound speaker system though.

JMS
12-07-2009, 06:19 AM
I love surround sound, but I would rather listen to a pair of good full-range stereo speakers than a poorly set-up sub/mini sat system.

rinardman
12-07-2009, 08:58 AM
If Guttenberg goes to a movie theatre, does he ask them to turn off the surround sound and play the movie in stereo?

electrictroy
12-07-2009, 12:36 PM
Why not run them through the ceiling? Yeah because my landlord would just love to see me tear-up his apartment.

Bigloww
12-07-2009, 01:14 PM
Yeah because my landlord would just love to see me tear-up his apartment.

Well if he will love it, start tearing that shit up..

Nevada_MO_Guy
12-07-2009, 02:13 PM
P.S. I'm tired of tripping over the wires that lead to my rear speakers. Is there some gadget (preferably inexpensive) that can be used to convert them to wireles.
Not to covert but if the wires are in the way, maybe organizing them with raceways (http://cableorganizer.com/wiremold/low-voltage-raceways.htm) or covers (http://www.electriduct.com/Rubber-Ducts_c_68.html).

http://images2.cableorganizer.com/wiremold-latching-raceways/wiremold-raceway-graphic.jpg
https://www.electriduct.com/assets/images/categories/ruber_ducts.jpg

Story (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10408696-47.html)
My personal home theater is a 2.0 (no subwoofer) system
This make me sad. :(

For me film is about the quality of the story, acting, and cinematography. The sound? Sure, it's extremely important, but it's there to support the picture.
I remember watching a Clint Eastwood movie, back in the day, when I had my first "good" surround system....I heard birds behind me, subtle but there and I remember thinking....wow all this time I never new those birds were back there.

If the director includes certain audio tracks in a movie doesn't that also become the "story"?

JMS
12-08-2009, 01:19 PM
There are people who still listen to music with only two speakers. Can you imagine? :o

Shark2k
12-08-2009, 01:57 PM
There are people who still listen to music with only two speakers. Can you imagine? :o

Well if the music is only encoded in 2.0 stereo than that would make sense. Any other way would be altering how the music is supposed to be played.

-Shark2k

soupnazi
12-08-2009, 02:18 PM
This guy was just trying to write an article that would rationalize 2 channel stereo snobbery towards surround sound. But, he is talking about multi channel surround sound tracks not 2 channel music tracks.

A 2 channel music track sounds more correct on a 2 channel system.
A multi channel surround track sounds more correct on a multi channel system.

Therefore, he is saying that he prefers to hear it incorrectly.

Loves2Watch
12-08-2009, 02:20 PM
This guy was just trying to write an article that would rationalize 2 channel stereo snobbery towards surround sound. But, he is talking about multi channel surround sound tracks not 2 channel music tracks.

A 2 channel music track sounds more correct on a 2 channel system.
A multi channel surround track sounds more correct on a multi channel system.

Therefore, he is saying that he prefers to hear it incorrectly.

Exactly...

Rich_Guy
12-08-2009, 02:36 PM
Yeah because my landlord would just love to see me tear-up his apartment.

Just drill a hole in your ceiling, run the wires across your upstairs neighbors floor (buy a cheap throw rug(s) to keep the neighbor from tripping on your wires). Then drill another hole where you need the wires back into your apartment. :thumbsup:

JMS
12-08-2009, 02:57 PM
Well if the music is only encoded in 2.0 stereo than that would make sense. Any other way would be altering how the music is supposed to be played.

-Shark2k
I see your point, but most music is recorded on more than two tracks and then mixed down to stereo because that is quite simply the limit of the CD format.

But playing a lot of music in stereo handicaps the original recording. For example I have a DVD-A of Beethoven Symphonies 5 & 7 (Kleiber/Vienna) that was originally recorded in the late seventies in 4 channel specifically for release in Quad format. I can now listen to the recording in its original form instead of being hampered by the old lossy 2.0 CD mixdown. I also have the Bartok Concerto for Orchestra (Reiner/Chicago), which was recorded with 3 microphones and are faithfully represented in the left/center/right channels on that SACD disc. The stereo versions of these and other discs sound good; the multichannel versions sound glorious.

I also see no reason to be a purist with ordinary CD playback. Once I got the trim settings right on my receiver, I find that my HK's Logic 7 algorithm makes plain old stereo come alive.

Scottnot
12-08-2009, 06:39 PM
This guy was just trying to write an article that would rationalize 2 channel stereo snobbery towards surround sound.
Gosh, it's hard to see how someone who wrote that "the quality of movie surround mixes has steadily improved over the years" can be accused of 2 channel stereo snobbery??
Seems that he's merely making unbiased observations to me.

A 2 channel music track sounds more correct on a 2 channel system.
A multi channel surround track sounds more correct on a multi channel system.
Therefore, he is saying that he prefers to hear it incorrectly.
Now that sort of "logic", however, sure smacks of "multi channel snobbery".

soupnazi
12-08-2009, 08:02 PM
Gosh, it's hard to see how someone who wrote that "the quality of movie surround mixes has steadily improved over the years" can be accused of 2 channel stereo snobbery??
Seems that he's merely making unbiased observations to me.

He said that he doesn't have surround sound at home even though he says he "reviews" surround sound equipment. It seems to me that he's implying that surround sound is not good enough or important enough for him to listen to in his own home.

Now that sort of "logic", however, sure smacks of "multi channel snobbery".

Try reading the statement you're referring to again. I think you misunderstood it.

tvine2000
12-08-2009, 10:01 PM
well i remember pink floyd did a lot with with surround sound ''live''!
surround sound has come along way since the prologic days. i still like stereo ,but really we hear in surround sound. and i think movie mixes are great these days.

where ever this guy lives ,he ought too just go outside and and listen whats around him. i'll take surround sound over stereo anyday.

tvine2000
12-08-2009, 10:06 PM
He said that he doesn't have surround sound at home even though he says he "reviews" surround sound equipment. It seems to me that he's implying that surround sound is not good enough or important enough for him to listen to in his own home.



Try reading the statement you're referring to again. I think you misunderstood it.

do we really care what this guy thinks anyways. sounds to me like he doesn't like surround sound ether.

why do cnet and other places like them have guys like this review anyway.this guy sounds like ''jacks a dull boy''

hoorta
12-10-2009, 03:53 AM
So you would not have a high opinion of his surround equipment reviews?

After reading that, I would trust his reviews of a surround system about as much as I would trust those reviews saying "the Bose Wave Radio can easily replace any sound system you're using". Even my Pioneer Elite 7.1 :haha: I'd love to pump all 1,300 watts RMS into a Wave Radio sometime, and post the results on YouTube. Methinks we'd be replacing the Bose, or what was little was left of it.

The guy must not like the ultra deep bass a good sub can deliver, the superior dialog clarity of a center channel, or the far, far greater depth of field surround and surround back speakers deliver- or else the guy's deaf.

Maybe he should take it one step farther- and just turn off the sound and put on the close-captioning. :2cents

Oh well, different strokes- I know a guy who swears he cant tell the difference between 480i and 1080p.

Scottnot
12-10-2009, 07:02 AM
why do cnet and other places like them have guys like this review anyway.this guy sounds like ''jacks a dull boy''
I'd say he sounds like he's well informed, unbiased and honest; perhaps that's why.

pappylap
12-12-2009, 01:09 PM
Why not run them through the ceiling?

He will be trippin' on them there as well..............:banana:

Loves2Watch
12-12-2009, 02:23 PM
Stereo vs. surround: And the winner is...Either or both depending what format the original presentation was recorded in.

Rich_Guy
12-12-2009, 02:32 PM
Generally, I prefer music in stereo (2.1 with subwoofer) and home theater in surround sound.

simonmay
05-14-2011, 08:54 PM
...playing a lot of music in stereo handicaps the original recording. For example I have a DVD-A of Beethoven Symphonies 5 & 7 (Kleiber/Vienna) that was originally recorded in the late seventies in 4 channel specifically for release in Quad format. I can now listen to the recording in its original form instead of being hampered by the old lossy 2.0 CD mixdown. I also have the Bartok Concerto for Orchestra (Reiner/Chicago), which was recorded with 3 microphones and are faithfully represented in the left/center/right channels on that SACD disc. The stereo versions of these and other discs sound good; the multichannel versions sound glorious.

I also see no reason to be a purist with ordinary CD playback. Once I got the trim settings right on my receiver, I find that my HK's Logic 7 algorithm makes plain old stereo come alive.

i bought Alan Wilder "subhuman" (definitely recommanded) : you get the standard cd and .....a dvd-a : H**** Sm****, the final result is completely amazing. I can't name my dts 96 device but it's a samsung cheap something, actually my wife home theater.

I consider myself picky and open minded at the same, this is why i can listen to music on any kind of device

I've been in the music creation for almost 33 years so far and never been too conservative neither avant-garde in my choices as average lazy creator.

I truly consider making my next recordings in dvd-a format cause it's too amazing.


My music production gears allows me an infinity of tracks and i used to dowgrade it to cd standard. With ten channel output i can do a lot: using many amplifiers and speakers in concert .....especially REAL 5OR 6 CHANNEL MUSIC.

But for JUST LISTENING TO DVD-A what would be your small-to-medium budget kit that would satisfy your high standards, and would more than accomodate mine ?

I know it's a bit bulky....if you want precisions (about my question/s) don't hesitate to reply
thanks in advance
Simon

p.s.: ...been a hard week i can read it...:confused: