help with a movie set up ?

[Rosco127]

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 ?

I think I'd prefer the 'Buy and forget' type at the moment, this is my first venture into lcd & cinematic experiances, so although I don't want to skimp on certain things (I've always been on the opinion that for the majority, you get what you pay for...ie no dvd + speakers for £100 if you see what I mean) I'm not at the stage where I will be on the lookout for upgrades for some time.

Not only that, but I should have mentioned that the room I will be having this stuff in is only 11.5 feet by 11.5 feet, so I'm guessing there is no need for 1000 watt speakers etc (yes, exageration, but I don't know much about what wattage sounds great in x sized room) but saying that, I want to be able to have the option of having medium sound and get great quality from the speakers

I've been reading various places like mad, discussions about certain dvd players, certain speakers, and I can honestly say that I'm even more confused then before.


To start with I was wanting to find a home cinema system with HDMI dvd player, so that it would boost the quality of my DVDs that I plan to watch, but after searching and reading, there doesn't seem to be too many available.

After this I started looking at Samsung DVD players and similar models that have HDMI for only say £90ish and do the DVDs justice, so I could then pick a nice speaker set to match (5.1 of course ).

From my rambling I reckon you can all see that I'm confused as heck, which I understand is making it harder for people to suggest certain things.

If I was to put a cap on the spending to say £1500 (roughly the same budget as the LCD TV) so that 50% is spent on picture, and the other 50% spent on sound/dvd.

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.

You sir, have great tase in music I've got that DVD/CD combo and can't wait to watch it on something other then a 17" PC screen. Got loads of these types of concerts, ranging from AC/DC, Led Zep, The Who, Queen, Stones...I could go on all night.

 

[FrankJH]

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.

Unrealistic example I am afraid, of course if you compare the same small some ( ie £300) then yes of course you are going to be able to get a much better stereo pair, but most people I would suggest would say ok I can save up a little longer and spend £100 on each speaker in a 5 speaker setup ( I would say from brand new £100 / speaker is a good start point) and maybe i am one of the few but its ridiculous to spend 1/2 yur budget on one speaker again unrealistic or bad advice


While most people think that drive / fly by's are the only thing that surround sound can do, its wrongggggg - you get much more atmosphere in crowded situations, at parties or on the street if directed well this can bring just as much enjoyment without realising it at first which would be muddied by having only two speakers

 

[DRZ]

Unrealistic example I am afraid, of course if you compare the same small some ( ie £300) then yes of course you are going to be able to get a much better stereo pair, but most people I would suggest would say ok I can save up a little longer and spend £100 on each speaker in a 5 speaker setup ( I would say from brand new £100 / speaker is a good start point) and maybe i am one of the few but its ridiculous to spend 1/2 yur budget on one speaker again unrealistic or bad advice


While most people think that drive / fly by's are the only thing that surround sound can do, its wrongggggg - you get much more atmosphere in crowded situations, at parties or on the street if directed well this can bring just as much enjoyment without realising it at first which would be muddied by having only two speakers

Cant you see that no matter how much money you throw at a 5.1 system, throwing exactly the same amount of money at a stereo system will get you more for your money simply by dividing the budget by number of components bought?

Buying 5 speakers AND a sub wont get you as good speakers as buying just 2 speakers.

If you are saying about buying the system in dribs and drabs over a few paycheques then maybe I see where you are coming from but still, if you saved up in the first place and got a killer stereo you would get better value for the same money!

EDIT: As for saying it is "unrealistic" to spend 50% of my budget on one speaker - erm, what??!!

Stereo speaker budget = £1000 (for example)

Number of speakers in a stereo setup = 2

Budget / speakers = £500 (or 50% of the budget)

As you cannot have a stereo system with only one speaker, it makes PERFECT sense to spend exactly 50% of the budget on one speaker.

 

[9designs2]

Ok, just some of my thoughts.
Sorry guys think your are being to Black and White, but I'll follow that in the other thread What was asked for was a 5.1 system, not a killer 2 channel set-up.

For the budget we are talking, I'd say have a listen & chat with a dealer to see what level of performance you will achieve, is it good enough for YOU ???

Front speakers, put most money into them, choose ones you like by listening to music.

Rear speakers need only cost a few quid, I use Kef Cresta 1, cost me £50, old stock.... They are used for effect mainly, unless you get into SACD/DVDA multi channel audio, let's leave that for another day !!!

Centre, I managed for ages with Phantom mode, a good set up stereo pair will image well so voice comes off the screen. "Movie/DVD" music is often better in Phantom, as it is often poorly mixed to centre only, then you would be listening to music from one speaker. TV is terrible for this.
Centre should be matched to the L+R chosen above

Sub, two choices, cheap, only switch it on for Block Buster movies, good one can be integrated with the bookshelf speakers. (you said you did not want floor standers) A Linn Katan/Sizmik set up can very musical, but blows your budget.

HDMI, yes as an input on the screen to allow Sky HD if required, on the DVD player, not essential, Component is just as good/better. It's how well it's implemented that counts, not the method of connection used. Let the screen do the up scaling at this price point.

AC/DC stiff Upper Lip sound and looks great

 

[Warbie]

And there I was looking at cheap 5.1 systems for £200-£300. Are these a waste of cash then?

We've a tiny living room, and after splashing out on an LCD my better half won't be pleased if the sound system comes to another grand+

 

[DRZ]

And there I was looking at cheap 5.1 systems for £200-£300. Are these a waste of cash then?

We've a tiny living room, and after splashing out on an LCD my better half won't be pleased if the sound system comes to another grand+

If it adds enjoyment to your listening experience, then it is worth it as far as I am concerned - whether it be £200 or £2000. Obviously, this thread just goes to show how much personal preference determines perceived "value for money".

If you desire a 5.1 system above all else, £300 will get you a system that the average man on the street would believe to be good quality. £300 would get you a stereo system that the average man on the street would consider to be fantastic quality. It is all a matter of perspective.

Go and demo one - if you like it, thats that isnt it!

 

[9designs2]

Just don't listen to systems costing much more.... you will become very unhappy !!
Ignorance can be bliss !!!

 

[viper_2003]

I almost dont want to get in the middle of this but here goes....

I started out with a modest stereo system that I built up over time ending up with a respectable Sony amp an Arcam CD72 and a pair of B&W 602's. I eventually bought a dvd player and had it running through the stereo system, I was really happy with it but did yearn for surround sound, an awful (read that as an AWFUL) lot of money later and I have a surround sound system that does a very good job with all formats&I have yet to hear a stereo system that blows it out of the water with music.

If I had £1000 to spend on a surround system I probably wouldnt bother, my 1st step down the surround road that was bought to match my existing stereo setup cost me about £3k thats not exactly small change and my current setup is insured for a rather large multiple of that.....

 

[FrankJH]

Cant you see that no matter how much money you throw at a 5.1 system, throwing exactly the same amount of money at a stereo system will get you more for your money simply by dividing the budget by number of components bought?

Buying 5 speakers AND a sub wont get you as good speakers as buying just 2 speakers.

If you are saying about buying the system in dribs and drabs over a few paycheques then maybe I see where you are coming from but still, if you saved up in the first place and got a killer stereo you would get better value for the same money!

EDIT: As for saying it is "unrealistic" to spend 50% of my budget on one speaker - erm, what??!!

Stereo speaker budget = £1000 (for example)

Number of speakers in a stereo setup = 2

Budget / speakers = £500 (or 50% of the budget)

As you cannot have a stereo system with only one speaker, it makes PERFECT sense to spend exactly 50% of the budget on one speaker.

Cables....interconnects .... speaker stands ( if required)....amps usually come in handy also (-: ( we are talking about the whole production of sound after all coming from the sourse - be it dvd / cd player etc)

And to be fair I wasnt talking about a stereo system when I mentioned 50% budget, Mr Sukebe mentioned paying 50% of the budget for the sub alone, which is where my comment came from being unrealistic

The best systems are matched throughout, performance and budget and tonal as much as possible.


It also helps if you compare like to like, you seem to be wanting to compare a Porsche 959 to a BMW 4x4 very little to compare each other too apart from the basics of "transporting human and inanimate cargo"

Anyway this is my last post in here, as i think its getting carried away - OP stated he required 5.1

 

[DRZ]

As far as I am aware, you arent going to want to spend part of your speaker budget on an amp - that would be your amp budget. Similarly, you would have a budget for your cables etc...

We arent comparing a Porsche to a 4x4 at all - we have two systems that both reproduce sounds 'accurately' at a given price point. One does two channels well, the other does 6 channels poorly in comparison...

 

[Matblack]

As far as I am aware, you arent going to want to spend part of your speaker budget on an amp - that would be your amp budget. Similarly, you would have a budget for your cables etc...

We arent comparing a Porsche to a 4x4 at all - we have two systems that both reproduce sounds 'accurately' at a given price point. One does two channels well, the other does 6 channels poorly in comparison...

My system is a Porsche Cayenne Turbo, bloody ugly but is both a 4x4 and fast

MB

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

And to be fair I wasnt talking about a stereo system when I mentioned 50% budget, Mr Sukebe mentioned paying 50% of the budget for the sub alone, which is where my comment came from being unrealistic

Apologies if my post was not completely obvious. When I said 50% of the budget, I did mean 50% of the speaker budget, NOT 50% of the total budget. DRZ seems to have got that, but clearly I'd not done a very good job of making that totally obvious.

 

[FrankJH]

My system is a Porsche Cayenne Turbo, bloody ugly but is both a 4x4 and fast

MB

Not doubting that - but it will never perform the same as a sportscar


At lower price points of course you are going to get a better stereo pair of speakers than 5 boxes, and at upper price brackets there is much less of a difference in the first place.

With something in the middle, with £100 - or more - to spend on each speaker ( the ONLY FAIR way to compare with a £200 stereo pair) you will get MUCH more realistic audio imaging as the director intended , yes so you may have to spend maybe £350 or so on a half decent sub ontop of this ( and buying one whole set, you can get them a lot better suited and cheaper for the £700 mark)

Its futile trying to buy three times the amount of technology ( ie 6 speakers in a 5.1 setup) and comparing it to the same value as a steroe pair, thats completely biased viewpoint

Anyway As I said the guy WANTS a 5.1 , he doesnt want stereo

 

[Rosco127]

Anyway As I said the guy WANTS a 5.1 , he doesnt want stereo

Thanks

After reading and reading about the LCDs, I think I'm pretty much set to buy the KDL V32A12U, just need to go to a Sony centre today and check it out. The 1 HDMI socket doesn't really bother me, as I'm more then likely not going to buy a PS3 (I'm not a console person), and I don't have Sky. I Read a very good point from someone, and he stated something along the lines of "If you are trying to buy something future proof, then you wouldn't actually ever buy anything, as technology can change in an instant".

The Denon 1950 hdmi seems to be a popular choice for a fair few people, so I'll have a look in to that too.

As for 5.1 speakers, I'm still not sure. I loved the look and fair price tag imo of the Samsung HT_P1200 (DVD + speakers), but the one thing that turned me against this is that all the speakers are floor standing. The main idea for me to get an LCD tv was to save space by mounting it on the wall. If only the HT_P1200 came with mountable speakers, then I would have given that a lot of conideration.

Thanks for the input so far

 

[Matblack]

Not doubting that - but it will never perform the same as a sportscar

Actually it does because it is a 2.0 system as well as a 5.1, the 2.0 is ENTIRELY independant of the 5.1

MB

 

[Matblack]

Thanks

After reading and reading about the LCDs, I think I'm pretty much set to buy the KDL V32A12U, just need to go to a Sony centre today and check it out. The 1 HDMI socket doesn't really bother me, as I'm more then likely not going to buy a PS3 (I'm not a console person), and I don't have Sky. I Read a very good point from someone, and he stated something along the lines of "If you are trying to buy something future proof, then you wouldn't actually ever buy anything, as technology can change in an instant".

The Denon 1950 hdmi seems to be a popular choice for a fair few people, so I'll have a look in to that too.

As for 5.1 speakers, I'm still not sure. I loved the look and fair price tag imo of the Samsung HT_P1200 (DVD + speakers), but the one thing that turned me against this is that all the speakers are floor standing. The main idea for me to get an LCD tv was to save space by mounting it on the wall. If only the HT_P1200 came with mountable speakers, then I would have given that a lot of conideration.

Thanks for the input so far

I already made a suggestion earlier in the thread with a link to somewhere which sells it

MB

 

[FrankJH]

Actually it does because it is a 2.0 system as well as a 5.1, the 2.0 is ENTIRELY independant of the 5.1

MB

its either 6 boxes or two not both ( well ok you could have sub's built into the front two , to make it five boxes)

or you have 7+ speakers with a seperate stereo pair and and five or more in a seperate region, even then you cant say one is the other as its using different equipemtn ( apart from amp or monoblocks)

 

[DRZ]

its either 6 boxes or two not both ( well ok you could have sub's built into the front two , to make it five boxes)

or you have 7+ speakers with a seperate stereo pair and and five or more in a seperate region, even then you cant say one is the other as its using different equipemtn ( apart from amp or monoblocks)

CDP --> Stereo amp
AV fronts --> stereo amp

TADA! 2.0 AND 5.1 in the same system.

 

[Rosco127]

ok ok ok, I visited a Sony Centre today, and I can say that I'm without a doubt buying the KDL-32A12U 32" LCD, along with this I am planning on buying the NS92V DVD player (HDMI), BUT I also noticed a set of speakers called HTSF1000, anyone heard anything about these ?

 

[FrankJH]

CDP --> Stereo amp
AV fronts --> stereo amp

TADA! 2.0 AND 5.1 in the same system.

So that makes maximum of four speakers ( even if seperate sub "speakers" are included in one pair, maximum is 4.2)

As I said first without 5 actual boxes at least its impossible to have proper 5.1 without some "virtualisation"