help with a movie set up ?

Rosco127

Rosco127

Rosco127

Associate
Joined
27 Dec 2003
Posts
32
Hello all, I'm on the verge of buying my first LCD TV, as well as various components to make DVD movies sound superb! Problem is, I don't know where to start.

All I can say is that I'm liking the look and specs pf the Sony BRAVIA KDLV32A12U 32", which costs around £1400.

I have no need of integrated freeview or anything, as I have ntl cable. Obviously if it has to come with a tv then thats fine.

Obviously if there is a better lcd out there below £1500, at 32" then I'm all ears, also as I stated above, I need all the components needed to make movies look and sound great (no 7.1 systems) as well as future proof...which is why I am posting here, from DVD Recorders, Home Cinema Systems, HDMI inputs, etc etc, I have no idea as to what I should buy.

Any help would be great!
 
You have ruled out 7.1 (which is fantastic for movies, done right) yet want good cinema surround - why?

Also, you have failed to state a budget. Are we looking at £200 or £20,000?

How big is the room? Do you want a discrete setup to fit in with a stylish, swanky room or do you want sound quality over everything else?
 
Sorry, totally forgot all of that :P

Right, the room is 11.5 feet by 11.5 feet, I'm ruling out 7.1 because my room is an awkward shape, and I can't see how I could fit in 2 more speakers.
The reason for this is that I plan to mount the TV on to a wall, which has to be a strong load bearing wall. I have no problem with this, but I would be hard to find where to put the 2 side speakers as I have a large window to my left, which has no space above or below for speaker placement (ideally I want to rule out floor standing speakers too, trying to save space seeing as I have a bed and desk in this same room).

TV Budget no more then £1500, I like the slimlined approach, where the majority of the TV is screen rather then big chunky panels (ie I like the Sony Bravia, and Samsung models).

The reason I havn't really specified a price for the rest is because I dont know what bits I need.

As a guestimate, I reckon I could spend up to £1000 on the extra bits (speakers, dvd players, hdmi or something, trying to future proof as I stated above).

Obviously if this isn't enough, then just suggest various items and I'll see about the price coming up a notch. Obviously I'll have to pay a little extra for future proofing which I don't mind at all.

Oh yeah, one more thing, I have neighbours living behind one of my walls, so I'm not looking for that type of sound that comes into it's own at the loudest point, I dont mind loud, just not window pumping loud :D

Overall, style would be nice, but it's not too important.
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify something at the start here: 7.1 is comprised of:

Front left, right and centre, rear left and right and rear left centre and right centre. There are no speakers "at the side" so to speak. Might make a difference, who knows.

You have ruled out floorstanders, which is a shame but obviously if you dont want them, thats that! Visually, they have a bigger impact on the room but once you have taken stands etc into account, they have much the same footprint.

Buying new, I would suggest looking at spending a bit over the £1000 mark for something you wont want to upgrade for a while.

AV amps tend to start getting much, much better and "future proof" (if such a thing exists) at around the £700 mark.

Speakerwise, I would suggest splitting the money with a huge front bias - £200 minimum for new fronts, £150 centre, £100 for rears, £200 for the sub.

Then you have the DVD player, probably again £2-300 for one that will upscale to HD (though I dont really know, off the top of my head)

So you are looking at not far off £2k all in buying new and "future proof" for something that is of decent quality.

Second hand, you can either spend less for the same sort of quality (but take a gamble, depending on where you buy from) or get MUCH better for your money. The amp might not have as many bells and whistles but it will certainly be better value for money!

EDIT:

Before anyone else gets here and says the same thing, it is more than fair to say that spending £x on just stereo will get you a far better sounding system than the same amount split all over a surround system.

I ditched my AV setup and I havnt looked back since!
 
Last edited:
If you spend your time listening to music more than movies then yes I would get a 2.1 system and get a middle of the road av amp than can do "virtual " surround

If you are really interested in movies then maybe spending upwards of £700 on an amp might be a good idea.

I have just invested in a Samsung 32" 41R32BDX, along with a Denon 1906 av amp. I am struggling with the amp setup (even after RTFM) but the screen is fabulous , especially at £800 ( is hdtv with a 1366*768 natural res) and can be found cheaper if yur willing to wait. The amp was £300.

If you dont like the tv ( which has freeview built in) there is also a T - instead of an R model - which is brand new and therefore more expensive or also look at the LG LXR range which is also well reviewed - I personally didnt like the LG (after having it for personal for quite a while) but many did

I have also heard good things about KHF tiny sat / sub combo speakers in different versions can be found from under £400 to around £700 for the most recent editions

I would also recommend a demo of Sony's av amps ( they also do a good range of combined av amps / dvd player bundled speakers - however these have to be used as one unit and arent easily upgradable) which I was very happy with for my first av system for about 4 years, and have only just moved it to my second system in the bedroom.

Denon do a good range of upscaling dvd players ( which I havent tried) but the Samsung HD850 ( for approx £85) which is excellent for the cash from my opinion, or HD 950 ( for around £100) are both very good upscaling units for the money
 
FrankJH said:
If you spend your time listening to music more than movies then yes I would get a 2.1 system and get a middle of the road av amp than can do "virtual " surround
Click to expand...

DO NOT DO THIS!

If you are going to go stereo - go stereo - that is, 2 speakers and an amp. Forget the .1 - it only confuses the issue and makes it sound worse!

Secondly - do not buy an A/V amp - that is half of the trouble right there. Get a stereo amp if you want to go stereo. Absolutely nothing else is up to the job.
 
DRZ said:
DO NOT DO THIS!

If you are going to go stereo - go stereo - that is, 2 speakers and an amp. Forget the .1 - it only confuses the issue and makes it sound worse!

Secondly - do not buy an A/V amp - that is half of the trouble right there. Get a stereo amp if you want to go stereo. Absolutely nothing else is up to the job.
Click to expand...


And what happens when he watches movies?????

He is buying the whole gear, not just a music centre!!!

Hifi or monoblocks are good IF YOU ONLY WNAT MUSIC, but they cant compete for total av ( without costing a lot more money)
 
FrankJH said:
And what happens when he watches movies?????

He is buying the whole gear, not just a music centre!!!

Hifi or monoblocks are good IF YOU ONLY WNAT MUSIC, but they cant compete for total av ( without costing a lot more money)
Click to expand...

I'd like to argue that I've gone from a 5.1 system to a stereo one, and prefer it. So YES they can compete.
 
Not for most movies they cant, or you are not listening to the soundtrack correctly ( or have very expensive stereo speakers which produce a decent amount of base)

Even then stereo cant do surround channels at all well - virtual surround has improved, but its no where as good as 5 proper speakers and a sub

For plain music, I would agree a decent stereo pair is excellent and can be better than many av amps and speaker combos

Or you mainly watch movies that dont utilise the surrounds like comedy's and dramas etc or pre star wars - iv ( which was the first major film to try it out)

You CAN watch most movies in stereo, you just miss a great deal of info in my opinion
 
OOoooooo this could run and run

Horses of courses and yes Mr_S and DRZ have good speakers which don't need extra bass.

People have been listening to movies in stereo for years and still got marvelous enjoyment from it. multichannel is not compulsary for a great movie experience. I would take a decent stereo rig over a crumby multichannel one every single time because a rubbish multichannel amp and speakers will quite frankly murder music and not sound great with movies. A good stereo rig will do both things well.

As for a sub being a 'must have' I had to spend £600 in the secondhand market to get a sub which would extend further than my stereo pair, nothing else would give me any advantage over the extention of the stereo pair (KEF 103/4s)

That is not to say that I don't like multichannel, I have a 5.1 set up with the KEFs, a KEF 200C and a M&K MX150THX, I love my multichannel setup, I use a stereo amp to power the stereo pair and as a power amp for the AV amp which gives me the best of both worlds, but if you ask me if I would rather swap to a cheap 5.1 rig or just keep the 103/4s and the Audiolab 8000A I wouldn't have to think twice, I could not listen to music and movies on a cheap 5.1, the stereo setup will give me better clarity, slam (yes, just because I won't have a cheap sub doesn't mean I won't hear the bass, in fact it will almost certainly be deeper and tighter), volume, and because of the magic of stereo I probably won't miss my centre too much, so they only thing thats gone is two rear channels.

So there you go, a rant from a multichannel fanatic about why stereo is better :D (at least than cheaper AV)

MB
 
Last edited:
Pretty much any aventue of response from me has been covered.

I would lust like to add that I borrowed a goliath-like sub to use with my speakers (some Paradigm thing) and it was inaudible over the bass provided by my speakers (which arent expensive, either) except for at the really, really low notes (where it was far from controlled and just destroyed the music).

My currrent hifi, on the "new" market at Manufacturers RRP costs something like £2300. I actually paid quite a bit less than that :p The A/V system it replaced cost me about £1600 and that was a fairly carefully put together system and you know what, apart from the odd scene it offers next to nothing over the stereo system.

Watching something like Hannibal, what you lose in the 5.1 presentation of the atmospheric music you gain in huge swathes of detail that just isnt there using similar-costing A/V.

Note that everything MB, Mr_S and I have said is not simply dismissing A/V - it is a contrast between the two approaches for performance per pound.

A/V done right is excellent - it is also fantastically expensive to get it to start to rival stereo!
 
I dont have any problem with anything Matblack or DRZ have stated

Hannibal isnt what I would call a decent example of a surround sound movie - yes there are affects here and there but nothing substantial

This is why I used Star Wars in my example it may be nearly 30 years old but especially with the recent remix you just have to hear the Destroyer coming from behind you with a real 5.1 setup to know 2.1 (or even just 2.0) just cant replicate this in any way shape or form - and there are other just as good real engrossing usage of the 3 ( or 3.1) speakers that you just dont get from a stereo pair

I think we are really just discussing where you start from ( very few can aim straight for top quality kit like KEF / M&K without a load of £££££ to spend on the sound and speakers let alone the screen as well)

If you have just had a dvd player plugged into a crt tv, moving to any surround setup will give an idea of what can be done. I myself have a REL Storm sub with 5 Acoustic Energy sattelites - including a proper centre channel - and I agree I couldnt make the step "backwards" to a combined av package that you can buy for £400 or so, it just wouldnt be the same experience.

However I would also have to spend a huge amount to get those KEF's etc let alone the amps etc that would make it a reasonalbe investment.

People have been listening to movies in stereo for years, i totally agree - but then for 30 years of hollywood they only had stereo mixes so that isnt really much of an arguement - in my opinion

Not many can afford £2000 on an amp and speakers , my setup is worht probably 1/2 of that.

You cant just add any old sub to a existing setup, whether its worth £100 or £5000 (as I am sure DRZ is aware) some makes just wont mix and as stated will actually detract from one another or just not add anything. But then you wouldnt add any old centre channel to your existing setup either - so you were unable to borrow the right type to suit your amp or speakers - unfortunately it didnt work - doesnt mean something else wouldnt.

At the end of the day some films are made with surround in mind and others arent, and with even tv series being made in surround sound now I cant see any viable arguement for not going 5.1
 
Hannibal is an example of where surround has been used properly - to create an atmosphere. Far better than using it to make things whizz past your head :)

I think the Usual Suspects soundtrack used it in much the same way.

It has to be said that an excellent stereo setup doesnt need a centre - they are used to keep the dialogue central in the image at the expense of the integrity of the front image. If you close your eyes and try and picture the soundstage in front of you, with anything but an excellent centre you find the image is lacking somewhat and that is something you just wouldnt get with a decent stereo pair.

I think for the sake of this thread, we should just agree to disagree.
 
FrankJH said:
Hollywood and the likes of THX / Dolby and DTS must be wrong as well then :D
Click to expand...

It's all a question of money.
If you had unlimited funds (and I mean unlimited), then a really good surround sound system would be great for films.
However, back in the real world, most of us have finite budgets.
Now, picture a simple example of an AV system vs a stereo one.

For the speakers, lets imagine you have the same funds for either a pair of stereo units, or a 5.1 combination. Most 5.1 combos seem to spend around 50% of their funds on the sub alone, leaving roughly 10% of the original budget for each individual speaker. In comparison, the stereo pair gets to spend 50% of the available speaker budget on each speaker. So in pure monetary terms, you're getting speakers costing 5 times the amount.
The same is pretty much true for the AV amp vs stereo. The AV amp must power far more channels, and must have internal processing, whilst the stereo doesn't have to.

So in pure cost terms, you're spending a lot more money, on a smaller number of components.

With regard to films. You're absolutely bang on that a stereo system will NEVER be able to do the "fly bys" that can be done by an AV system. Having said that, you go and think about how many "fly/drive/walk/shoot bys" exist in most films. For 90%+ of the time, you're listening to dialogue and action that's coming from the front.
So what you're saying is that you're happy to make 90%+ of the time in your films sound worse, just so that you have the odd "effect" rambling around behind you.

Bear in mind that we've only talked about films. I've never heard any AV system that I liked on music, and no clues how much a stereo system would kill the average AV one.

Lets just say that once I'd tried a good stereo system again, I would not chose to allocate my funds on an AV system.

Go on, think it through.
 
all this is getting way above my head :P

I'm not keen on the Stero or anything other then the 5.1 option, as I will be playing the majority of my music through my PC, the only proper music aside from film soundtracks etc that I will be using the home cinema system for would be the odd concert DVD that I have.

I've read all the details and arguments for various things, but can anyone actually name some products that I could look in to ?

Thanks
 
I see the old AV vs Stereo debate rages on ;) .... when will you guys accept it and get ya self down to a Linn dealer and enjoy both worlds !!!
You know it makes sense and I'm right !!!!! :p

I actually think you are over stating the issue, as "fanatics" and "purists" it's fair point, but to most people, and who don't want to get to involved and spend a lot, an enjoyable system can be done surely ???

Rosco127, is this a buy and forget system, or are you interested in building over time to something along the lines the others are suggesting ?
Some options, very biased, but I happen to think that some companies have got the balance right !

One box Solution + speakers:-
Linn Movie Classik Di. Second Hand approx £1000. (Naim no one as well now)
Left + Right Speakers Linn Katan S/H appox £300
Rears Linn Unik or AV5110 approx £100 (or items form Richer sounds etc)
Small REL sub for movie use. (or Linn Sizmik 10.25 if funds allow, then can be used for music with the Katan)
Add centre later if needed, use Phantom mode (Linn Trikan centre)

A system that will play music, thanks to the Classik/Katan set up, plus will have excellent picture, and good surround effect.
To improve the above add extra power amps as funds allow, say a AV5125, (5 channel power amp), or LK140 stereo power amps for the L+R speakers. Two LK140 power amps with active cards on the Katan are superb and musical for a bookshelf speaker.

Mix and Match system:-
A decent Stereo amp (£500) plus say a Yamaha DSPE800 (£100 S/H) add on AV amp, it powers the rear and center, but leaves the Stereo amp to drive the L+R speakers, these of your own taste.
DVD player, plus separate CD player if music is "important"

Next step up, for better music and movies.
Arcam DVD79 player around £600 S/H, (if music was more important would say cheap DVD player, and separate CD player - Linn Genki)
Linn AV5103 AV Processor S/H £600-700
Linn AV5125 5 channel power amp S/H £800
Speakers as above....or any make of your taste
Also look at the new Komponent speakers from Linn.
The Linn AV5103 "AV Processor" (£3400 when new) Plays music - NO DEBATE

Ok perhaps over budget, but can be built bit by bit, but is a multi purpose system that will far exceed the Yamaha/Denon route.
And will do Music DVD justice, I've just been watching the Eric Clapton, "Mr Johnson sessions" the DTS DVD sounds better than the CD that accompanies the DVD, and can be very enjoyable.

It all comes down to budget, and how important the music side is, either CD or DVD concerts etc...... many options can be found, just a couple to fuel the "debate" :D

As ever a good dealer is your best friend.... get some demo's to experience what us bunch of "fanatics" are waffling on about.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom