Really "listened" to my first surround system

[DMHenrie]

Got a chance to actually spend a day listening to a Home theater system
He has a Samsung 56" DLP with HDTV feed
An Onkyo Receiver, model ?
Klipsch reference series towers for front, L R, Center, and smaller
bookshelf surrounds, and two in wall rears (rarely anything come out).
The sub was custom built by a Clair Brothers Audio Engineer, where my friend
works. It is basically a huge reinforced box, with two 18" wookers placed
cone to cone, and then ported. This sub is driven by a 1200 watt ATI bridged
amp

My opinions.
The Onkyo had a a hard time playing very loud, or high input signals and
kept shutting off at the depth charges on U571. Once we released it from its
cabinet, and let it cool (really wasnt more than warm), and had the fan on
it, then we could finally play it a loud, and I mean loud levels for the
depth attacks.
The ATI amp, and the Clair dual 18" Sub were friggin awesome. My stomach
would almost get nauseated when a depth charge went off it was soooo low. I
had my girlfriend, who has a say in the equipment I plan to buy, well, I had
her stand legs spread in front of the sub. And after the vibes hit, she said
"buy one". Solid, low, no rattling, no boom whatsever anywhere in sub or in
room.
I was not overly impressed with the Klipsch. They did have some good
dispersion, and the dual woofers did go rather low, but I thought the bass
was on the boomy/muddy side, and the horns were very detailed with the
highs. Vocals/voice was very good though, as was presence. My 20 Year old
Dahlquist DQ-20's have much better detail and overall range, and It's my
understanding that the Klipsch are not cheap speakers for this series.

The Samsung was superb, with colors, brigtness/contrast and detail on HDTV
lifekie, if not better than lifelike.

Overall, was somewhat disappointed in the amount of information that comes
out of rears/surrounds on movies. I thought more info was there on a 5.1
dvd. I know some are better than others, but we played quite a few, and
eh... nothing really thilled me in surround sound.
I was also disappointed in the amount of actual 20-30 hertz subwoofer
information on Audio CD.s. I always thought there was more there, but I
brought a dozen or so tracks from songs noted for deep bass, and it was
non-existent, or should I say, nothing like U-571. Pink Floyds Dark Side
Heartbeat, was rather good, but others including some Telarcs CD's were a
disappointment.

Another observation was that I think the home video market really needs to
find a way to better simplify all this, cause playing with all the formats,
and four remotes at his place was a task my girlfriend will never do, and I
can tell you it takes away from the experience even in my case.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:56:12 GMT, "DMHenrie" <DMHenrie@Hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Overall, was somewhat disappointed in the amount of information that comes
>out of rears/surrounds on movies. I thought more info was there on a 5.1
>dvd. I know some are better than others, but we played quite a few, and
>eh... nothing really thilled me in surround sound.

Not all DVDs are mastered/created equally and, in addition, not all
systems are set up optimally.

>I was also disappointed in the amount of actual 20-30 hertz subwoofer
>information on Audio CD.s. I always thought there was more there, but I
>brought a dozen or so tracks from songs noted for deep bass, and it was
>non-existent, or should I say, nothing like U-571. Pink Floyds Dark Side
>Heartbeat, was rather good, but others including some Telarcs CD's were a
>disappointment.

Here, set up is one of the most important issues since there is no
subwoofer or LFE track on CDs. Anything routed to the sub is subject
to the setup/processing in the receiver or pre-pro. I cannot comment
on that in this particular instance, of course.

>Another observation was that I think the home video market really needs to
>find a way to better simplify all this, cause playing with all the formats,
>and four remotes at his place was a task my girlfriend will never do, and I
>can tell you it takes away from the experience even in my case.

There are universal programmable remotes and better system integration
options available. Good start but do not judge the entire medium (HT)
from any one specific setup, this one or, even, mine. ;-)

Kal

[severian]

Doesn't sound like it was a particularly well setup system. The Klipsch's
are very efficient, and not a particularly hard load to drive, if the Onkyo
was having problems, something's wrong, either the wiring, lack of cooling,
or the Onkyo has a problem. Also, if there isn't much coming out of the
surrounds on a 5.1 movie like U571, the system definitely isn't balanced
correctly. There's a well defined procedure using a sound pressure meter to
accurately calibrate the volume settings for all the channels in a surround
setup, it appears this one isn't setup right. Ditto for the sub/bass
equation, something's wrong if the bass from the sub is that strong but the
midbass from the Klipsch's isn't there or is wimpy. I suspect the crossover
and speaker size settings in the surround setup aren't configured correctly.

It is more complicated to setup a system like this, some receivers have
automated setups with microphones included that will measure and setup this
for you, and in general they work extremely well. Also, when you build any
complex setup like this, you have to go to a learning remote control, and
program it. I've got 6 different manufacturers components in my setup, but
all are operatable from one remote, with macro's to turn the whole system on
and off with one button push, easy and simple to operate.

Properly setup, a surround system can sound remarkably good on music. A well
setup system should just make the music sound fuller and more realistic.

"DMHenrie" <DMHenrie@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0mBre.82$S17.14878@monger.newsread.com...
> Got a chance to actually spend a day listening to a Home theater system
> He has a Samsung 56" DLP with HDTV feed
> An Onkyo Receiver, model ?
> Klipsch reference series towers for front, L R, Center, and smaller
> bookshelf surrounds, and two in wall rears (rarely anything come out).
> The sub was custom built by a Clair Brothers Audio Engineer, where my
> friend works. It is basically a huge reinforced box, with two 18" wookers
> placed cone to cone, and then ported. This sub is driven by a 1200 watt
> ATI bridged amp
>
> My opinions.
> The Onkyo had a a hard time playing very loud, or high input signals and
> kept shutting off at the depth charges on U571. Once we released it from
> its cabinet, and let it cool (really wasnt more than warm), and had the
> fan on it, then we could finally play it a loud, and I mean loud levels
> for the depth attacks.
> The ATI amp, and the Clair dual 18" Sub were friggin awesome. My stomach
> would almost get nauseated when a depth charge went off it was soooo low.
> I had my girlfriend, who has a say in the equipment I plan to buy, well, I
> had her stand legs spread in front of the sub. And after the vibes hit,
> she said "buy one". Solid, low, no rattling, no boom whatsever anywhere in
> sub or in room.
> I was not overly impressed with the Klipsch. They did have some good
> dispersion, and the dual woofers did go rather low, but I thought the bass
> was on the boomy/muddy side, and the horns were very detailed with the
> highs. Vocals/voice was very good though, as was presence. My 20 Year old
> Dahlquist DQ-20's have much better detail and overall range, and It's my
> understanding that the Klipsch are not cheap speakers for this series.
>
> The Samsung was superb, with colors, brigtness/contrast and detail on HDTV
> lifekie, if not better than lifelike.
>
> Overall, was somewhat disappointed in the amount of information that comes
> out of rears/surrounds on movies. I thought more info was there on a 5.1
> dvd. I know some are better than others, but we played quite a few, and
> eh... nothing really thilled me in surround sound.
> I was also disappointed in the amount of actual 20-30 hertz subwoofer
> information on Audio CD.s. I always thought there was more there, but I
> brought a dozen or so tracks from songs noted for deep bass, and it was
> non-existent, or should I say, nothing like U-571. Pink Floyds Dark Side
> Heartbeat, was rather good, but others including some Telarcs CD's were a
> disappointment.
>
> Another observation was that I think the home video market really needs to
> find a way to better simplify all this, cause playing with all the
> formats, and four remotes at his place was a task my girlfriend will never
> do, and I can tell you it takes away from the experience even in my case.
>

[rdclark]

DMHenrie wrote:

> Another observation was that I think the home video market really needs to
> find a way to better simplify all this, cause playing with all the formats,
> and four remotes at his place was a task my girlfriend will never do, and I
> can tell you it takes away from the experience even in my case.

You are absolutely right about this. We geeks can protest all we want
about universal remotes and how it's all not that complicated and shit,
but in the end the "turn it on and change the channel" paradigm is
still as far as most people are willing to go.

As we move towards the digital broadcasting era, it will become more
and more evident that the way to capture the market is to build
hardware that makes everything automatic. A widescreen TV with three
built-in speakers and two wireless surround speakers, that
automatically switches to "best available audio," will sell far more
units than any home theater sound system.

RichC

[Bob Horvath]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:56:12 GMT, Bob Horvath wrote:

Reading your post, it sounds like you are familiar with things, but
the fact that you are not too impressed, I do assume that you are
using a co-axial or optical cable, and not R+L RCa cables.
I have a job that get me in a lot of homes, and you would be
surprised at the amount of DVD Player hookups that I see with RCA R+L.
The people were clueless about the other cables. FWIW.
Bob

>Got a chance to actually spend a day listening to a Home theater system
>He has a Samsung 56" DLP with HDTV feed
>An Onkyo Receiver, model ?
>Klipsch reference series towers for front, L R, Center, and smaller
>bookshelf surrounds, and two in wall rears (rarely anything come out).
>The sub was custom built by a Clair Brothers Audio Engineer, where my friend
>works. It is basically a huge reinforced box, with two 18" wookers placed
>cone to cone, and then ported. This sub is driven by a 1200 watt ATI bridged
>amp
>
>My opinions.
>The Onkyo had a a hard time playing very loud, or high input signals and
>kept shutting off at the depth charges on U571. Once we released it from its
>cabinet, and let it cool (really wasnt more than warm), and had the fan on
>it, then we could finally play it a loud, and I mean loud levels for the
>depth attacks.
>The ATI amp, and the Clair dual 18" Sub were friggin awesome. My stomach
>would almost get nauseated when a depth charge went off it was soooo low. I
>had my girlfriend, who has a say in the equipment I plan to buy, well, I had
>her stand legs spread in front of the sub. And after the vibes hit, she said
>"buy one". Solid, low, no rattling, no boom whatsever anywhere in sub or in
>room.
>I was not overly impressed with the Klipsch. They did have some good
>dispersion, and the dual woofers did go rather low, but I thought the bass
>was on the boomy/muddy side, and the horns were very detailed with the
>highs. Vocals/voice was very good though, as was presence. My 20 Year old
>Dahlquist DQ-20's have much better detail and overall range, and It's my
>understanding that the Klipsch are not cheap speakers for this series.
>
>The Samsung was superb, with colors, brigtness/contrast and detail on HDTV
>lifekie, if not better than lifelike.
>
>Overall, was somewhat disappointed in the amount of information that comes
>out of rears/surrounds on movies. I thought more info was there on a 5.1
>dvd. I know some are better than others, but we played quite a few, and
>eh... nothing really thilled me in surround sound.
>I was also disappointed in the amount of actual 20-30 hertz subwoofer
>information on Audio CD.s. I always thought there was more there, but I
>brought a dozen or so tracks from songs noted for deep bass, and it was
>non-existent, or should I say, nothing like U-571. Pink Floyds Dark Side
>Heartbeat, was rather good, but others including some Telarcs CD's were a
>disappointment.
>
>Another observation was that I think the home video market really needs to
>find a way to better simplify all this, cause playing with all the formats,
>and four remotes at his place was a task my girlfriend will never do, and I
>can tell you it takes away from the experience even in my case.
>

[Larry Caldwell]

DMHenrie wrote:

> Overall, was somewhat disappointed in the amount of information that comes
> out of rears/surrounds on movies. I thought more info was there on a 5.1
> dvd.

There are many roadblocks between a DVD and 5.1 digital audio. The DVD
player has to be configured to output DD, and the amp has to be
configured to decode it. Also, very few DVDs are encoded for 7.1
sound, which is probably why you didn't hear much coming out of the
wall speakers.

I don't know what model you were listening to (probably a 70x), but my
Onkyo 702 has three optical inputs that have to be assigned to a
channel to become active. Otherwise, the receiver will default to the
stereo RCA inputs. After that, it is just a matter of balancing the
speakers, which can be difficult if the impedance varies.

It is best to spend a lot of time designing a HT sound system. Just
fitting 6 speakers and a sub with their wiring into one room can be a
PITA. As you noticed, controlling the system can be a challenge too.

I source off of a Dish 921 DVR. The remote for the DVR handles all the
OTA and satellite recording tasks, and can be configured so the
volume/mute buttons operate the amp/receiver. 90% of the time, the
satellite remote is the only remote required. The Onkyo also came with
a programmable learning remote that will handle everything, if I ever
finish getting it programmed. With a projector, electric screen, DVD,
VCR, sat DVD and receiver, the array of buttons gets a bit confusing.
Eventually I will add either a Media PC or HD game console to the mix.
Someday I would like to be able to burn a 720p signal to DVD. Does
anyone know if a DVI port on a video card is 2-way? For output onto
coax, I frequency shift the RF output to UHF, so they don't get
interference from other Ch 3 or Ch 4 sources in the house. Wireless
media extenders might work better.

I finally settled for my best guesses and started to put a system
together. I don't know if an enthusiast will ever be satisfied, but
visitors sure get impressed.

[MrC1]

You mentioned the "RF" series of speakers, but which are you speaking of?
There's several levels from small to very large in the Klipsch RF series
line.

"DMHenrie" <DMHenrie@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0mBre.82$S17.14878@monger.newsread.com...
> Got a chance to actually spend a day listening to a Home theater system
> He has a Samsung 56" DLP with HDTV feed
> An Onkyo Receiver, model ?
> Klipsch reference series towers for front, L R, Center, and smaller
> bookshelf surrounds, and two in wall rears (rarely anything come out).
> The sub was custom built by a Clair Brothers Audio Engineer, where my
friend
> works. It is basically a huge reinforced box, with two 18" wookers placed
> cone to cone, and then ported. This sub is driven by a 1200 watt ATI
bridged
> amp
>
> My opinions.
> The Onkyo had a a hard time playing very loud, or high input signals and
> kept shutting off at the depth charges on U571. Once we released it from
its
> cabinet, and let it cool (really wasnt more than warm), and had the fan on
> it, then we could finally play it a loud, and I mean loud levels for the
> depth attacks.
> The ATI amp, and the Clair dual 18" Sub were friggin awesome. My stomach
> would almost get nauseated when a depth charge went off it was soooo low.
I
> had my girlfriend, who has a say in the equipment I plan to buy, well, I
had
> her stand legs spread in front of the sub. And after the vibes hit, she
said
> "buy one". Solid, low, no rattling, no boom whatsever anywhere in sub or
in
> room.
> I was not overly impressed with the Klipsch. They did have some good
> dispersion, and the dual woofers did go rather low, but I thought the bass
> was on the boomy/muddy side, and the horns were very detailed with the
> highs. Vocals/voice was very good though, as was presence. My 20 Year old
> Dahlquist DQ-20's have much better detail and overall range, and It's my
> understanding that the Klipsch are not cheap speakers for this series.
>
> The Samsung was superb, with colors, brigtness/contrast and detail on HDTV
> lifekie, if not better than lifelike.
>
> Overall, was somewhat disappointed in the amount of information that comes
> out of rears/surrounds on movies. I thought more info was there on a 5.1
> dvd. I know some are better than others, but we played quite a few, and
> eh... nothing really thilled me in surround sound.
> I was also disappointed in the amount of actual 20-30 hertz subwoofer
> information on Audio CD.s. I always thought there was more there, but I
> brought a dozen or so tracks from songs noted for deep bass, and it was
> non-existent, or should I say, nothing like U-571. Pink Floyds Dark Side
> Heartbeat, was rather good, but others including some Telarcs CD's were a
> disappointment.
>
> Another observation was that I think the home video market really needs to
> find a way to better simplify all this, cause playing with all the
formats,
> and four remotes at his place was a task my girlfriend will never do, and
I
> can tell you it takes away from the experience even in my case.
>
>

[Someone]

> Another observation was that I think the home video market really needs to
> find a way to better simplify all this, cause playing with all the
> formats, and four remotes at his place was a task my girlfriend will never
> do, and I can tell you it takes away from the experience even in my case.


Get yourself a Pronto remote, I have it setup that a 4 year old kid could
turn the system on and start a movie or tv with only 1 or 2 clicks on the
remote. Macros rule !

"DMHenrie" <DMHenrie@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0mBre.82$S17.14878@monger.newsread.com...
> Got a chance to actually spend a day listening to a Home theater system
> He has a Samsung 56" DLP with HDTV feed
> An Onkyo Receiver, model ?
> Klipsch reference series towers for front, L R, Center, and smaller
> bookshelf surrounds, and two in wall rears (rarely anything come out).
> The sub was custom built by a Clair Brothers Audio Engineer, where my
> friend works. It is basically a huge reinforced box, with two 18" wookers
> placed cone to cone, and then ported. This sub is driven by a 1200 watt
> ATI bridged amp
>
> My opinions.
> The Onkyo had a a hard time playing very loud, or high input signals and
> kept shutting off at the depth charges on U571. Once we released it from
> its cabinet, and let it cool (really wasnt more than warm), and had the
> fan on it, then we could finally play it a loud, and I mean loud levels
> for the depth attacks.
> The ATI amp, and the Clair dual 18" Sub were friggin awesome. My stomach
> would almost get nauseated when a depth charge went off it was soooo low.
> I had my girlfriend, who has a say in the equipment I plan to buy, well, I
> had her stand legs spread in front of the sub. And after the vibes hit,
> she said "buy one". Solid, low, no rattling, no boom whatsever anywhere in
> sub or in room.
> I was not overly impressed with the Klipsch. They did have some good
> dispersion, and the dual woofers did go rather low, but I thought the bass
> was on the boomy/muddy side, and the horns were very detailed with the
> highs. Vocals/voice was very good though, as was presence. My 20 Year old
> Dahlquist DQ-20's have much better detail and overall range, and It's my
> understanding that the Klipsch are not cheap speakers for this series.
>
> The Samsung was superb, with colors, brigtness/contrast and detail on HDTV
> lifekie, if not better than lifelike.
>
> Overall, was somewhat disappointed in the amount of information that comes
> out of rears/surrounds on movies. I thought more info was there on a 5.1
> dvd. I know some are better than others, but we played quite a few, and
> eh... nothing really thilled me in surround sound.
> I was also disappointed in the amount of actual 20-30 hertz subwoofer
> information on Audio CD.s. I always thought there was more there, but I
> brought a dozen or so tracks from songs noted for deep bass, and it was
> non-existent, or should I say, nothing like U-571. Pink Floyds Dark Side
> Heartbeat, was rather good, but others including some Telarcs CD's were a
> disappointment.
>
> Another observation was that I think the home video market really needs to
> find a way to better simplify all this, cause playing with all the
> formats, and four remotes at his place was a task my girlfriend will never
> do, and I can tell you it takes away from the experience even in my case.
>

[Rich Clark]

"Someone" <Somone@someplace.com> wrote in message
news:1120687578.63f73f7989feb99b7628d6a8a00790d8@t eranews...
>> Another observation was that I think the home video market really needs
>> to find a way to better simplify all this, cause playing with all the
>> formats, and four remotes at his place was a task my girlfriend will
>> never do, and I can tell you it takes away from the experience even in my
>> case.
>
>
> Get yourself a Pronto remote, I have it setup that a 4 year old kid could
> turn the system on and start a movie or tv with only 1 or 2 clicks on the
> remote. Macros rule !

Yes, but the 4-year old couldn't set up the remote. Programmable remotes
with macros are a geek thing; if a household happens to have a resident
geek, everyone can benefit. Most don't.

And even if they do, there are millions of people who just want to "turn on
the TV and change the channel." These are the folks that the industry needs
to serve if they want them to adopt more complex home entertainment systems.

RichC
>
> "DMHenrie" <DMHenrie@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0mBre.82$S17.14878@monger.newsread.com...
>> Got a chance to actually spend a day listening to a Home theater system
>> He has a Samsung 56" DLP with HDTV feed
>> An Onkyo Receiver, model ?
>> Klipsch reference series towers for front, L R, Center, and smaller
>> bookshelf surrounds, and two in wall rears (rarely anything come out).
>> The sub was custom built by a Clair Brothers Audio Engineer, where my
>> friend works. It is basically a huge reinforced box, with two 18" wookers
>> placed cone to cone, and then ported. This sub is driven by a 1200 watt
>> ATI bridged amp
>>
>> My opinions.
>> The Onkyo had a a hard time playing very loud, or high input signals and
>> kept shutting off at the depth charges on U571. Once we released it from
>> its cabinet, and let it cool (really wasnt more than warm), and had the
>> fan on it, then we could finally play it a loud, and I mean loud levels
>> for the depth attacks.
>> The ATI amp, and the Clair dual 18" Sub were friggin awesome. My stomach
>> would almost get nauseated when a depth charge went off it was soooo low.
>> I had my girlfriend, who has a say in the equipment I plan to buy, well,
>> I had her stand legs spread in front of the sub. And after the vibes hit,
>> she said "buy one". Solid, low, no rattling, no boom whatsever anywhere
>> in sub or in room.
>> I was not overly impressed with the Klipsch. They did have some good
>> dispersion, and the dual woofers did go rather low, but I thought the
>> bass was on the boomy/muddy side, and the horns were very detailed with
>> the highs. Vocals/voice was very good though, as was presence. My 20 Year
>> old Dahlquist DQ-20's have much better detail and overall range, and It's
>> my understanding that the Klipsch are not cheap speakers for this series.
>>
>> The Samsung was superb, with colors, brigtness/contrast and detail on
>> HDTV lifekie, if not better than lifelike.
>>
>> Overall, was somewhat disappointed in the amount of information that
>> comes out of rears/surrounds on movies. I thought more info was there on
>> a 5.1 dvd. I know some are better than others, but we played quite a few,
>> and eh... nothing really thilled me in surround sound.
>> I was also disappointed in the amount of actual 20-30 hertz subwoofer
>> information on Audio CD.s. I always thought there was more there, but I
>> brought a dozen or so tracks from songs noted for deep bass, and it was
>> non-existent, or should I say, nothing like U-571. Pink Floyds Dark Side
>> Heartbeat, was rather good, but others including some Telarcs CD's were a
>> disappointment.
>>
>> Another observation was that I think the home video market really needs
>> to find a way to better simplify all this, cause playing with all the
>> formats, and four remotes at his place was a task my girlfriend will
>> never do, and I can tell you it takes away from the experience even in my
>> case.
>>
>
>

[neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com]

DMHenrie wrote:
> Got a chance to actually spend a day listening to a Home theater system

Cool!

> He has a Samsung 56" DLP with HDTV feed
> An Onkyo Receiver, model ?
> Klipsch reference series towers for front, L R, Center, and smaller
> bookshelf surrounds, and two in wall rears (rarely anything come out).
> The sub was custom built by a Clair Brothers Audio Engineer, where my friend
> works. It is basically a huge reinforced box, with two 18" wookers placed
> cone to cone, and then ported. This sub is driven by a 1200 watt ATI bridged
> amp

Wow!

> My opinions.
> The Onkyo had a a hard time playing very loud, or high input signals and
> kept shutting off at the depth charges on U571. Once we released it from its
> cabinet, and let it cool (really wasnt more than warm), and had the fan on
> it, then we could finally play it a loud, and I mean loud levels for the
> depth attacks.

Sounds like you were listening at truly realistic, lifelike levels.

> The ATI amp, and the Clair dual 18" Sub were friggin awesome. My stomach
> would almost get nauseated when a depth charge went off it was soooo low. I
> had my girlfriend, who has a say in the equipment I plan to buy, well, I had
> her stand legs spread in front of the sub. And after the vibes hit, she said
> "buy one".

Never thought of testing a sub that way, but it's an interesting
technique. A really deep sub with a deep signal coming into it will
give you a physical sensation. At a local nightclub, there are some
subs at the bottom of the speaker stack on either side of the stage.
I've sometimes felt little breezes from the subs, because they're
pumping out so much air, as well as feeling my insides quivering a bit
too.

>Solid, low, no rattling, no boom whatsever anywhere in sub or in
> room.
> I was not overly impressed with the Klipsch. They did have some good
> dispersion, and the dual woofers did go rather low, but I thought the bass
> was on the boomy/muddy side,

Using the Onkyo's settings, maybe some of that bass should have been
filtered out before it reached the Klipsch speakers?

But I realize that your friend has a real subwoofer, not just a bass
speaker that's being called a sub, like most people have in their
homes. IOW, normal speakers could/should be run at full range, with
your friend's sub supplying what no normal speaker can.

It's also possible the sub's crossover was set a little too high and it
overlapped with the bass output of the Klipsch speakers. Or this could
be a problem with the room's acoustics, personal taste, or the
soundtrack itself being a little too muddy in the region where you
noticed the muddiness.

>and the horns were very detailed with the
> highs. Vocals/voice was very good though, as was presence. My 20 Year old
> Dahlquist DQ-20's have much better detail and overall range, and It's my
> understanding that the Klipsch are not cheap speakers for this series.

Sounds like you should stick to the Dahlquists.

> The Samsung was superb, with colors, brigtness/contrast and detail on HDTV
> lifekie, if not better than lifelike.
>
> Overall, was somewhat disappointed in the amount of information that comes
> out of rears/surrounds on movies. I thought more info was there on a 5.1
> dvd.

There can be more, but generally the rears only receive subtle, ambient
effects, as I pointed out in another response to you. If there were a
lot of distinct sounds coming from the rears, it would cue the listener
to turn around and look behind him and he wouldn't be able to watch the
movie as easily. For that reason, usually there isn't much sound going
to rears. However, sometimes turning the rears off while listening will
have the dramatic effect of seeming to make the sound "collapse" toward
the front speakers and then the value of the rear speakers suddenly
becomes obvious.

>I know some are better than others, but we played quite a few, and
> eh... nothing really thilled me in surround sound.

It's not always a big difference over stereo. As I posted to you
previously, you might be perfectly happy with connecting your TV and/or
DVD player's audio outputs to your existing stereo and listening that
way.

In my home, there's really only one room that's suited to having rear
speakers. So in other rooms, if I have a TV there, I connect that TV to
a stereo system. While that doesn't give the feeling of depth that a
surround system can provide, just having the TV connected to a stereo
system is a huge improvement in sound compared to using only the TV's
speakers.

> I was also disappointed in the amount of actual 20-30 hertz subwoofer
> information on Audio CD.s. I always thought there was more there, but I
> brought a dozen or so tracks from songs noted for deep bass, and it was
> non-existent, or should I say, nothing like U-571.

In movie soundtracks, which are designed to be exciting and thrilling
and played through big speakers in theaters, the sound can be made to
be very low.

>Pink Floyds Dark Side
> Heartbeat, was rather good, but others including some Telarcs CD's were a
> disappointment.

I think the low E, which is lowest note on a bass guitar, is 40 Hz, so
on a typical recording of any kind of popular music, the bass in the
music doesn't go as low as it could on a system with a sub like your
friend has.

> Another observation was that I think the home video market really needs to
> find a way to better simplify all this, cause playing with all the formats,
> and four remotes at his place was a task my girlfriend will never do, and I
> can tell you it takes away from the experience even in my case.

I agree very strongly with this. The same could be said for all the
possible settings on the latest TVs, where it's possible to adjust
resolution, screen format, etc. When I start reading or hearing too
many details about all the possible settings, I just lose interest.

All I want to do is walk into the room, hit the power button on the
remote, and have everything work with no changes in settings. I have a
family, and if the gear's not easy to use, it won't get used, and then
the gear's just a waste of money, space, and time. So all my gear is
extremely easy to use.

It is possible to have gear that's very easy to use, mainly through
having either one-brand systems or (and this is more complex) having
one remote programmed to do everything and to set the gear to go to all
the appropriate settings when you want to (for example) play a CD.

An example of one-brand systems would be having a DVD player, receiver,
and TV all from Sony, and all the hardware linked by Sony's S-Link
system. JVC and Pioneer also have similar systems. For example, with
JVC gear connected via JVC's CompuLink system, you can put in a DVD in
the DVD player and the JVC receiver and JVC TV will automatically power
up and go to the correct settings for watching a DVD.

These linking systems have never gotten popular in the US, where it
seems many people want to have as many brands as possible in their
systems. But I think the linking systems are a great idea. (Part of the
problem may be that so few consumers are aware of the linking systems
and no hardware maker adverises such systems, so the makers aren't
raising consumer awareness.) A few years ago, there was some talk of
creating a universal linking system for all AV gear, but I think that
idea went nowhere.

I'm having a lot of work done in my home now, but when the work's done
and the dust has settled, I'm probably going to go with a one-brand
system from one of the above makers. I'll pick out some good speakers
from other brands, but all the other hardware will be from one brand
that offers the linking feature. My family dislikes fussing with a lot
of gear and settings and I find that I also want the convenience of
simple-to-operate gear.

Anyway, thanks for posting with your experience with your friend's
impressive system.

[neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com]

Rich Clark wrote:
> "Someone" <Somone@someplace.com> wrote in message
> news:1120687578.63f73f7989feb99b7628d6a8a00790d8@t eranews...
> >> Another observation was that I think the home video market really needs
> >> to find a way to better simplify all this, cause playing with all the
> >> formats, and four remotes at his place was a task my girlfriend will
> >> never do, and I can tell you it takes away from the experience even in my
> >> case.
> >
> >
> > Get yourself a Pronto remote, I have it setup that a 4 year old kid could
> > turn the system on and start a movie or tv with only 1 or 2 clicks on the
> > remote. Macros rule !
>
> Yes, but the 4-year old couldn't set up the remote. Programmable remotes
> with macros are a geek thing; if a household happens to have a resident
> geek, everyone can benefit. Most don't.

Agree. I'd be the resident geek in my house, but I still don't want to
do the programming of the remote. I'd be too worried that the remote's
battery would die or something would go wrong and I'd lose all my
programming.

As I mentioned previously in this thread, another solution is a
one-brand system, like a Sony system linked with Sony's S-Link. All the
Sony gear will then operate as one unit.

> And even if they do, there are millions of people who just want to "turn on
> the TV and change the channel."

Which includes me, almost all of the time. Most of the time, I don't
care about analog or digital, or aspect ratios or resolution or
anything else. I just want to turn on the TV and watch a show or a DVD
or VHS tape. And my family wants even less fussing than I do.

>These are the folks that the industry needs
> to serve if they want them to adopt more complex home entertainment systems.

Exactly. Given the complexity of operating a lot of HT gear, I'm
surprised that the HT movement and products have been so successful.

(snip)

[Larry Caldwell]

In article <04ednTSOsfrJ-VHfRVn-hg@comcast.com>,
rdclark2SPAM@TRAPcomcast.net (Rich Clark) says...

> And even if they do, there are millions of people who just want to "turn on
> the TV and change the channel." These are the folks that the industry needs
> to serve if they want them to adopt more complex home entertainment systems.

Those people are served just fine by a regular TV set. If you want
surround sound, almost all high end TVs have external speaker outputs.
Add a couple of rear speakers and a subwoofer, and the average consumer
would think it sounds just fine.

The typical luser is not going to spend an extra $2000 to $5000 for a
high end audio system built into a TV set.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

[neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com]

Larry Caldwell wrote:
> In article <04ednTSOsfrJ-VHfRVn-hg@comcast.com>,
> rdclark2SPAM@TRAPcomcast.net (Rich Clark) says...
>
> > And even if they do, there are millions of people who just want to "turn on
> > the TV and change the channel." These are the folks that the industry needs
> > to serve if they want them to adopt more complex home entertainment systems.
>
> Those people are served just fine by a regular TV set. If you want
> surround sound, almost all high end TVs have external speaker outputs.
> Add a couple of rear speakers and a subwoofer, and the average consumer
> would think it sounds just fine.

Another simple way to go is to connect some powered PC speakers to the
TV's line-level outputs, assuming the TV has those and the level from
those outputs can be varied by the TV's volume control. Or you can use
a TV's headphone output in the same way. I've done the above several
times over the years in rooms where rear speakers would be overkill or
wouldn't fit. Just adding some good PC speakers can make a big
improvement over the speakers built into many TVs. And a good
left/right spread of the speakers will add directionality and depth to
the audio.

> The typical luser is not going to spend an extra $2000 to $5000 for a
> high end audio system built into a TV set.

Agree. It would be kinda nice if TV makers paid more attention to sound
quality, but I guess they figure that would add too much to TV prices
and that people who care a lot about sound quality will add bigger and
better speakers and other gear anyway.

[Rich Clark]

<neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121806880.926557.112460@g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

>> The typical luser is not going to spend an extra $2000 to $5000 for a
>> high end audio system built into a TV set.
>
> Agree. It would be kinda nice if TV makers paid more attention to sound
> quality, but I guess they figure that would add too much to TV prices
> and that people who care a lot about sound quality will add bigger and
> better speakers and other gear anyway.

I agree with all that; the fact that most people don't care that much about
audio is one reason standard TV audio sounds so bad.

But that wasn't my point.

The industry thrives best when they succeed at creating new markets -- also
known as creating demand where none existed, or making people want things
they didn't care about five minutes ago.

That's how we got iPods and Wave Radios.

Home theater audio is too complicated. Even Bose hasn't succeeded in
simplifying it to the point where "everybody wants one," although they were
clearly trying with the 3-2-1 thing.

There may be no way to solve this; too many manufacturers, too big an
installed base of disparate equipment. But if someone were to invent a
magical $500 device that you could just plug into the wall and suddenly
there would be true discrete 5.1 sound from all your 5.1 sources -- some
sort of sphere that you place near the ceiling in the center of the room,
say -- that could reliably and automatically sense the system setup and
configure itself on the fly -- then they'd sell a jillion of them. Even if
the sound was mediocre.

RichC

[steve]

Rich Clark wrote:
> But if someone were to invent a
> magical $500 device that you could just plug into the wall and suddenly
> there would be true discrete 5.1 sound from all your 5.1 sources -- some
> sort of sphere that you place near the ceiling in the center of the room,
> say -- that could reliably and automatically sense the system setup and
> configure itself on the fly -- then they'd sell a jillion of them. Even if
> the sound was mediocre.
>
> RichC

This is getting closer, but more than $500

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/YSP1/

[Rich Clark]

"steve" <combssl@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42DDB2E1.2204B8A5@yahoo.com...
>
>
> Rich Clark wrote:
>> But if someone were to invent a
>> magical $500 device that you could just plug into the wall and suddenly
>> there would be true discrete 5.1 sound from all your 5.1 sources -- some
>> sort of sphere that you place near the ceiling in the center of the room,
>> say -- that could reliably and automatically sense the system setup and
>> configure itself on the fly -- then they'd sell a jillion of them. Even
>> if
>> the sound was mediocre.
>>
>> RichC
>
> This is getting closer, but more than $500
>
> http://www.yamaha.com/yec/YSP1/

Yes, I remember the S&V review. Pretending for a moment that it was
cost-effective and foolproof, the next step would be to find a way to
convince the universe that they need one, like Apple and Bose did with their
breakthrough products. Yamaha has never had a marketing department that
savvy (which is too bad, since they've made some great products over the
years).

RichC

[neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com]

Rich Clark wrote:
> <neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1121806880.926557.112460@g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> >> The typical luser is not going to spend an extra $2000 to $5000 for a
> >> high end audio system built into a TV set.
> >
> > Agree. It would be kinda nice if TV makers paid more attention to sound
> > quality, but I guess they figure that would add too much to TV prices
> > and that people who care a lot about sound quality will add bigger and
> > better speakers and other gear anyway.
>
> I agree with all that; the fact that most people don't care that much about
> audio is one reason standard TV audio sounds so bad.

Another word to describe TV audio would be "adequate." And for those
who care about audio, the fact that TV audio sound quality is adequate
is part of the problem.

> But that wasn't my point.
>
> The industry thrives best when they succeed at creating new markets -- also
> known as creating demand where none existed, or making people want things
> they didn't care about five minutes ago.
>
> That's how we got iPods and Wave Radios.

Agree.

> Home theater audio is too complicated. Even Bose hasn't succeeded in
> simplifying it to the point where "everybody wants one," although they were
> clearly trying with the 3-2-1 thing.

Agree. For maybe 10+ years, there have been proprietary linking systems
(from JVC, Pioneer, Sony, etc.) that will make home AV gear function as
one unit, but those systems are never advertised, IME, and almost
nobody knows about them.

If I were Bose, I'd think about selling a TV designed to link to the
3-2-1 and/or getting a TV maker to offer TVs with that feature.

> There may be no way to solve this; too many manufacturers, too big an
> installed base of disparate equipment.

And for many people really into gear, there's still the appeal of
having gear cherry-picked from different brands, so that each item is
the best for the user's needs or taste. This is a stumbling block for
creating integrated systems.

> But if someone were to invent a
> magical $500 device that you could just plug into the wall and suddenly
> there would be true discrete 5.1 sound from all your 5.1 sources -- some
> sort of sphere that you place near the ceiling in the center of the room,
> say -- that could reliably and automatically sense the system setup and
> configure itself on the fly -- then they'd sell a jillion of them. Even if
> the sound was mediocre.

There have been simplified surround-sound systems sold before, but I
don't think any have sold well. Radio Shack is now selling a
one-speaker product like this now and it includes one little sub, all
for $99. Boston Acoustics, DCM, Niro, and Zvox offer/have offered
simplified surround systems too.

But my impression is that none of these sell that well, although they
appeal to consumers like me. At least in the US, where a typical AV
gear consumer probably has enough room and money for a 5.1 (or more)
channel system, plenty of people seem to want that sort of system, even
if it means cluttering up a room with a lot of speakers, wire, etc. or
else installing a similar, but better concealed, system.

[Oliver Costich]

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 19:08:03 -0400, "Rich Clark"
<rdclark2SPAM@TRAPcomcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Someone" <Somone@someplace.com> wrote in message
>news:1120687578.63f73f7989feb99b7628d6a8a00790d8@t eranews...
>>> Another observation was that I think the home video market really needs
>>> to find a way to better simplify all this, cause playing with all the
>>> formats, and four remotes at his place was a task my girlfriend will
>>> never do, and I can tell you it takes away from the experience even in my
>>> case.
>>
>>
>> Get yourself a Pronto remote, I have it setup that a 4 year old kid could
>> turn the system on and start a movie or tv with only 1 or 2 clicks on the
>> remote. Macros rule !
>
>Yes, but the 4-year old couldn't set up the remote. Programmable remotes
>with macros are a geek thing; if a household happens to have a resident
>geek, everyone can benefit. Most don't.

And the kid has to know how to repace the batteries since they last
about 10 days in this thing.
>
>And even if they do, there are millions of people who just want to "turn on
>the TV and change the channel." These are the folks that the industry needs
>to serve if they want them to adopt more complex home entertainment systems.
>
>RichC
>>
>> "DMHenrie" <DMHenrie@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:0mBre.82$S17.14878@monger.newsread.com...
>>> Got a chance to actually spend a day listening to a Home theater system
>>> He has a Samsung 56" DLP with HDTV feed
>>> An Onkyo Receiver, model ?
>>> Klipsch reference series towers for front, L R, Center, and smaller
>>> bookshelf surrounds, and two in wall rears (rarely anything come out).
>>> The sub was custom built by a Clair Brothers Audio Engineer, where my
>>> friend works. It is basically a huge reinforced box, with two 18" wookers
>>> placed cone to cone, and then ported. This sub is driven by a 1200 watt
>>> ATI bridged amp
>>>
>>> My opinions.
>>> The Onkyo had a a hard time playing very loud, or high input signals and
>>> kept shutting off at the depth charges on U571. Once we released it from
>>> its cabinet, and let it cool (really wasnt more than warm), and had the
>>> fan on it, then we could finally play it a loud, and I mean loud levels
>>> for the depth attacks.
>>> The ATI amp, and the Clair dual 18" Sub were friggin awesome. My stomach
>>> would almost get nauseated when a depth charge went off it was soooo low.
>>> I had my girlfriend, who has a say in the equipment I plan to buy, well,
>>> I had her stand legs spread in front of the sub. And after the vibes hit,
>>> she said "buy one". Solid, low, no rattling, no boom whatsever anywhere
>>> in sub or in room.
>>> I was not overly impressed with the Klipsch. They did have some good
>>> dispersion, and the dual woofers did go rather low, but I thought the
>>> bass was on the boomy/muddy side, and the horns were very detailed with
>>> the highs. Vocals/voice was very good though, as was presence. My 20 Year
>>> old Dahlquist DQ-20's have much better detail and overall range, and It's
>>> my understanding that the Klipsch are not cheap speakers for this series.
>>>
>>> The Samsung was superb, with colors, brigtness/contrast and detail on
>>> HDTV lifekie, if not better than lifelike.
>>>
>>> Overall, was somewhat disappointed in the amount of information that
>>> comes out of rears/surrounds on movies. I thought more info was there on
>>> a 5.1 dvd. I know some are better than others, but we played quite a few,
>>> and eh... nothing really thilled me in surround sound.
>>> I was also disappointed in the amount of actual 20-30 hertz subwoofer
>>> information on Audio CD.s. I always thought there was more there, but I
>>> brought a dozen or so tracks from songs noted for deep bass, and it was
>>> non-existent, or should I say, nothing like U-571. Pink Floyds Dark Side
>>> Heartbeat, was rather good, but others including some Telarcs CD's were a
>>> disappointment.
>>>
>>> Another observation was that I think the home video market really needs
>>> to find a way to better simplify all this, cause playing with all the
>>> formats, and four remotes at his place was a task my girlfriend will
>>> never do, and I can tell you it takes away from the experience even in my
>>> case.
>>>
>>
>>
>