What would be an undisputed reference AV setup?

[squiffy]

Ok so Mr sukebe

For about 100k you can go to the cinema 20k times (assuming £5 ticket)

Thats about 70 years assuming go once every day!

Is your 100k meridian system gonna match a cinema?

sid

My system blows away cinema sound quality. And I don't have to worry about kids. I can pause the film.

But as to the OP, a "reference" system is usually fairly top-end, that way you have a reference to when comparing other systems. ie for Hi-Fi, Audiolab 800CDM, CDM/DAX, Audiolab 8000Q, and two 8000MX's were used for a 2 channel system in What Hi-Fi.

 

[9designs2]

Did you read the thread? That is serious overkill for a reference system.

Yes, more than you did

"What would be an undisputed reference setup?

How much would you have to spend 10k , 50k or 100k"

Think I answered that, ....... how can you have over kill on a reference system.... ???

Also depends on what you expect and demand from your system, as most of us here have a strong, primary requirement in music, the "AV" side is always a point of debate, do you bother, will it hurt the stereo performance, will the budget stretch that far.....
My view has been to build a 2 channel system, and splice on what need to feed a set of low cost rears and a suitable centre.......for me that has meant a couple of extra power amp channels off ebay !!! in the scheme of this quiet cheep.
Recently I've put together a 2nd AV system, Denon 1920 DVD, 2106 amp, now I've found if you JUST use the AV amp as a preamp, and hook up external powers, it does a dam fine job on music as well..... So to easy the complicated issues of Reference AV and MUSIC, add powers to your AV amp set up, as why of avoiding the high cost of a High End AV pre, THAT can do both....... ie The LINN stuff I normally pimp, (though AV5103 is a used bargain)..... Or just add the AV amp on to a stereo pre.....the old DSP-E800 was good product for that.

But if you want to get into multi channel audio, then it gets expensive, as then all channels become as important...... as in the example I posted above, that system is "undisputed reference" to me, as it has no bias, just no compromise on any format or usage...but at a cost.

Re Cinema, yep, agree with DRZ, 10K system can easily out perform your local cinema.... Our local has 2 certified THX screens, so the certificate on the wall use to say before Virgin sold it off..... In comparison to home, it has harsh, aggressive, metallic sounding.... not a patch on the home set-up.....

Most of the expense in my system is used to make 2 channels sound good, just it also dam good at AV as well now
For me mines getting near "reference" ..... Linn 1.1 player, Linn Kinos AV Pre-amp, with Linn active power amps into Dynaudios.....it was chosen for music though !!

 

[squiffy]

Given the choice, I would have a HT over a 2 channel system, with gear of similar quality. You don't get proper HT experience from 2 channel.

Don't compromise on the HT and buy lesser gear to put it in your budget, just spend more.

 

[DRZ]

And how do you propose to spend money that you dont have to exceed your budget? What a totally ridiculous suggestion.

No matter how much money you care to throw at a problem there are ALWAYS going to be compromises somewhere along the line - not least the whole "where do you stop" debate.

I watch perhaps one film a week tops. I spend at the very least something like 4 hours a day listening to music. Why should I compromise my stereo chasing an out-of-budget HT system that simply isnt right for me? My budget is and always will be put into stereo first. Should I reach a point where I am more than happy with my setup and I have oodles of spare cash floating about, I will tack on some surround channels to do the rest of it justice. It will be in budget and better than any public cinema, plus I will still be able to enjoy my music.

 

[squiffy]

And how do you propose to spend money that you dont have to exceed your budget? What a totally ridiculous suggestion.

If you usually spend £1K per component for your Hi-Fi, then spend £1K per component for the HT. Simple. Instead of buying everything at once on the HT with the identical budget of your 2 channel system, buy fewer components initially but of similar quality and buy the rest later.

I have both a nice Hi-Fi and Home Theatre, they both do their own jobs very well, but my Home Theatre sounds far better than Hi-Fi (for films) and also to more expensive Hi-Fi systems.

I find people into Hi-Fi are a bit snobby, and not into HT at all, usually a home theatre in a box or very low end/budget gear, and a small 4:3 screen. If you want similar quality you need to spend more overall on the HT. I have five 2 channel power amps, av processor, and a very good subwoofer. That alone is close to £10K. Hi-Fi people usually kid themselves a 2 channel system can come close to a nice HT for immersive experience. It won't. A friend of mine is into Naim 2 channel gear and utter gob smacked of my HT system. He's not into HT but he didn't think his Naim setup has anywhere near my HT.

 

[9designs2]

If you usually spend £1K per component for your Hi-Fi, then spend £1K per component for the HT. Simple. Instead of buying everything at once on the HT with the identical budget of your 2 channel system, buy fewer components initially but of similar quality and buy the rest later.

I have both a nice Hi-Fi and Home Theatre, they both do their own jobs very well, but my Home Theatre sounds far better than Hi-Fi (for films) and also to more expensive Hi-Fi systems.

I find people into Hi-Fi are a bit snobby, and not into HT at all, usually a home theatre in a box or very low end/budget gear, and a small 4:3 screen. If you want similar quality you need to spend more overall on the HT. I have five 2 channel power amps, av processor, and a very good sub woofer. That alone is close to £10K. Hi-Fi people usually kid themselves a 2 channel system can come close to a nice HT for immersive experience. It won't. A friend of mine is into Naim 2 channel gear and utter gob smacked of my HT system. He's not into HT but he didn't think his Naim setup has anywhere near my HT.

That doesn't add up..... Spend 1K on a 2 channels pre-amp is not the same as spending 1K on an AV pre-amp, you may have to spend 50-100% more on the AV pre to get the same stereo quality... which is the point the other guy's are making..... so the 2k spent on a stereo pre would be even better...and so it goes on...
But does your friend have sub with his Naim set-up....???
Of coarse 2 channel gets close to HT... and better normally.... try unplugging the extra speakers on a HT set up, and sub, then see which ones sounds better !......... (Power amps, speakers etc don't know or care what they are being fed, music or movies, they are either good or there not !!...and music being the more revealing source) The HT will sound better for movies because it has the sub for bass reinforcement and surrounds for effect..... but that's what it is, "effect", not better quality for movies.... hence my Reference suggestion.... it's "Audio grade" with enough channels for movies.... which is my approach, selected for Stereo performance, increased quantity for movies.....

 

[squiffy]

You have no idea how side/surrounds effect overall atmosphere. When you go to a odeon cinema do you ask to them to turn off the side, surround and subwoofers and only use the 2 channel downmix? No. You won't get immersive sound from 2 channel, no matter how good your system is.

Stop being a hifi snob. Spend £4K on your system to upgrade it to HT and you won't look back. You still have the nice 2 channel pre-power/speakers for pure stereo, but centre/sides/surrounds/subwoofer too for films.

Oh most DVD titles now lack dedicated 2 channel mixes, so using the multi-channel mix then downmixing is in fact inferior to a pure 2 channel soundtrack. DTS itself is a multi-channel mix by itself, you don't get 2 channel DTS audio transfers on a disc.

Mot watching a multi-channel soundtrack as it was intended is like you using your 2 channel system in downmixed to one mono channel (disconnect one speaker)

I'd like to see just what impact your mains can do compared to dedicated sub. What I mean is for £1K per item except AV amplifier, in fact I wouldn't buy a av amplifer as they're generally pretty low quality. I would spend £1000 on main speakers for both HT and stereo, £1000 centre etc.

I think have a slightly more valid opinion as I have both, stop kidding yourself a 2 channel won't provide immersive quality from a HT of similar quality per component.

When watching a film in straight stereo in still sounds very good, but it doesn't have that 360 panning or the full bass reproduction. And that's the point.

No my mate doesn't have a subwoofer, he's a audio purist. I agree with him on that, a subwoofer in 2 channel system isn't required as music doesn't really have sub sonic bass. But HT mixes do.

The issue isn't my debate here, it's the hifi snobs thinking a 2ch system is better than a multi-channel HT. Cost is irrelvent, as we all know to go into HT is more expensive, unless you buy cheap gear.

 

[Dr.EM]

I significantly prefer the sound of my Hi-Fi to our local cinema, seriously. Our local cinema sound is unbalanced, in particular it is too forward in the upper mids. The bass is occasionally impressive but for the most part it just fails, the bass units only seem able to handle a few bass tones, kind of like a cheap tuned/bandpass sub being pushed too hard. The surround effect is often incoherant, it doesn't match the film properly; the speakers are way too high up for one thing. I can see the speakers down the edge and they look very cheap, very shallow enclosure, certainly don't look big enough for the size of the cinema. No sign of any acoustic treatments, pretty high ceiling though.

Anyhow, I don't suspect our local cinema is a lot worse than most, it just seems like any commercial/money making enterprise will lower thier expendature as much as possible, and for a lot of people the cinema sound is probably fine. Compared to a Hi-Fi/HT setup though it will be quite easy to beat. A THX certified cinema should be better, might try and go to one sometime.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

You have no idea how side/surrounds effect overall atmosphere. When you go to a odeon cinema do you ask to them to turn off the side, surround and subwoofers and only use the 2 channel downmix? No. You won't get immersive sound from 2 channel, no matter how good your system is.

Stop being a hifi snob. Spend £4K on your system to upgrade it to HT and you won't look back. You still have the nice 2 channel pre-power/speakers for pure stereo, but centre/sides/surrounds/subwoofer too for films.

Oh most DVD titles now lack dedicated 2 channel mixes, so using the multi-channel mix then downmixing is in fact inferior to a pure 2 channel soundtrack. DTS itself is a multi-channel mix by itself, you don't get 2 channel DTS audio transfers on a disc.

Mot watching a multi-channel soundtrack as it was intended is like you using your 2 channel system in downmixed to one mono channel (disconnect one speaker)

I'd like to see just what impact your mains can do compared to dedicated sub. What I mean is for £1K per item except AV amplifier, in fact I wouldn't buy a av amplifer as they're generally pretty low quality. I would spend £1000 on main speakers for both HT and stereo, £1000 centre etc.

I think have a slightly more valid opinion as I have both, stop kidding yourself a 2 channel won't provide immersive quality from a HT of similar quality per component.

When watching a film in straight stereo in still sounds very good, but it doesn't have that 360 panning or the full bass reproduction. And that's the point.

No my mate doesn't have a subwoofer, he's a audio purist. I agree with him on that, a subwoofer in 2 channel system isn't required as music doesn't really have sub sonic bass. But HT mixes do.

The issue isn't my debate here, it's the hifi snobs thinking a 2ch system is better than a multi-channel HT. Cost is irrelvent, as we all know to go into HT is more expensive, unless you buy cheap gear.

Interesting reply, yet a little wide of the mark.
Didn't you read my earlier comment that I used to own a combo stereo/av system? So I certainly DO have experience of it.

As for your comments. Do you seriously believe that if I were to spend say £2k on dedicated stereo pre-amp, that a 5.1 channel processor of the same cost and from the same manufacturer would be capable of matching the stereo pre-amps front channels? From a purely logical basis, it can't because you're spreading the available funds over a bigger group of components.
The implications are VERY easy, those 2 channels dealt with by the dedicated stereo unit will be better (all other things being equal). The logic can then be rolled out to the rest of components in the chain. e.g. instead of spending say £2k on a pair of speakers, you might spend £1k on a sub, then effectively £200 each on a speaker. The result are speakers costing approx 1/5th of the dedicated ones.
As such, you have either:
1. Better front stereo channels, or
2. The addition of rear channels, sub and centre
Now just think about the movies you watch (and I have more than a reasonable amount to comment about, even excluding the BD ones). My personal opinion is that whilst some films do have extra "ambience" from the rears, that most of the soundtrack is from the front.

So what would you rather optimise, (a) the majority of the soundtrack, or (b) compromise on the majority of the films soundtrack so that you can have a small amount of rear effects.

You really haven't thought this through have you?

 

[squiffy]

Don't comrpomise, and just spend more in total to get the HT.
There is more to surround than the "small amount of rear effects" I think you're watching the wrong films. Modern soundtracks have a considerable amount of effects from side/surrounds. It's more about ambiance from behind and around you- you won't get that from the stereo soundfield. Buy the best you can afford per component, but go into HT. HT is costly, I'm not disputing that, I'm saying watch the films how they're supposed to be viewed. Not forgetting what the centre speaker does, the left & rights do not lock the speech exactly onto the centre of the screen- my L/R have stunning stereo width seperation, but the centre just does it better.

I am not discussing the points of £1000 stereo pre-amp v £1000 av amplifier, as we all know what is better per pound. What I am saying if you have the money, and you watch movies then buy a 5.1 system.

Films are so much more enjoyable in MC rather than stereo, and that's the whole reason of going to the cinema, enjoying the cinema sound. You don't go there to listen to 2 channel.

btw if I didn't buy the HT bits I wouldn't spend more per component just to get better sound, I think £1K is a good cut-off per item, and I wouldn't want to spend more than that. My Hi-Fi gear per component is around £1K too.

 

[mcmad]

Mr_Sukebe

Ive read many posts in the past from you & others where rear effects are mentioned in such a way that I genuinly doubt few people on here have actually heard a decently integrated AV system, I'm not talking about adding extra speakers to a decent audio setup, I'm talking about a dedicated AV system in a properly designed room.

Can I suggest you find your nearest M&K dealer & ask for a demo of an S150 surround setup with tripole surrounds & properly integrated sub. You wont be able to point to the sound sources, instead you will experience a fully immersive surround experience. Careful what you demo on it though, nothing too intense for the first time. It may convince you there is a hell of a lot more than mere ambience to surround sound

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Don't comrpomise, and just spend more in total to get the HT.

The only way that makes any sense is if I (we) had unlimited funds to be able to blow. In which case, I'm not going to argue. If I had the money to buy whatever I wanted for the stereo, then add HT, then sure, I'm sure it would sound great.

Back in the real world, 99.999% of us don't have unlimited funds. Assuming you have any finite level to a budget, you need to decide how best to allocate those funds. I'm simply arguing that there are other ways to allocate those funds, which IMO can result in a better result. Again, that is IMO and quite clearly if you think you're better with HT only, that's cool, but don't assume that either answer is appropriate for everyone.

 

[squiffy]

You don't need "unlimited" funds to get a good HT. You've got existing 2ch system, so just add the rest.

And why do you think I have HT only? The left & right speakers are superb for 2 channel too. The stereo parts of the HT are a Lexicon MC-1, Audiolab power amps and Kef Reference 2.2. Most people don't even have that system for 2 channel, let alone HT. It sounds great for both 2ch and HT.

Like mcmad said, if you feel surround sound speakers do little, then you haven't heard a good system going, it wasen't setup right or it's in a badly shaped room.

Since you pay attention to the front then spend the majority of the money on that. It's no different to 2 channel in that case, you get decent L/R speakers, poweramp and pre stages.

I do agree at a point it's better to get 2 channel than a 5.1 say £1000 total. That's fine, but don't say that given systems of similar quality (not budget) the Hi-Fi will be better for film track reprodruction.

Going to watch Spiderman in 1080p, 5.1 with Logic 7 extensions and all it's multi-channel glory later.

 

[9designs2]

You have no idea how side/surrounds effect overall atmosphere. When you go to a odeon cinema do you ask to them to turn off the side, surround and subwoofers and only use the 2 channel downmix? No. You won't get immersive sound from 2 channel, no matter how good your system is.

Stop being a hifi snob. Spend £4K on your system to upgrade it to HT and you won't look back. You still have the nice 2 channel pre-power/speakers for pure stereo, but centre/sides/surrounds/subwoofer too for films.

Oh most DVD titles now lack dedicated 2 channel mixes, so using the multi-channel mix then downmixing is in fact inferior to a pure 2 channel soundtrack. DTS itself is a multi-channel mix by itself, you don't get 2 channel DTS audio transfers on a disc.

Mot watching a multi-channel soundtrack as it was intended is like you using your 2 channel system in downmixed to one mono channel (disconnect one speaker)

I'd like to see just what impact your mains can do compared to dedicated sub. What I mean is for £1K per item except AV amplifier, in fact I wouldn't buy a av amplifer as they're generally pretty low quality. I would spend £1000 on main speakers for both HT and stereo, £1000 centre etc.

I think have a slightly more valid opinion as I have both, stop kidding yourself a 2 channel won't provide immersive quality from a HT of similar quality per component.

When watching a film in straight stereo in still sounds very good, but it doesn't have that 360 panning or the full bass reproduction. And that's the point.

No my mate doesn't have a subwoofer, he's a audio purist. I agree with him on that, a subwoofer in 2 channel system isn't required as music doesn't really have sub sonic bass. But HT mixes do.

The issue isn't my debate here, it's the hifi snobs thinking a 2ch system is better than a multi-channel HT. Cost is irrelvent, as we all know to go into HT is more expensive, unless you buy cheap gear.

I have no idea !!!! errrr want to look back at some post to see what I'm running first......

Yes movies are more immersive with full surround... that's why I've bothered !!! BUT as Mr_S says if your main use/interest is music, and you want to maximise your budget in that direction, then HT will not do it for you.... Plus it doesn't stop you watching and enjoying a film.... I think the dynamics and control a good 2 channel system has, still allows you to enjoy the sound of the film as well.... agreed not to the full effect of a 5.1....
If I was forced too, I'd sacrifice the rear equipment before down grading the front L+R for music use....

There's is another angle to this debate... HT system, which may be great for movies, are not going to cut it with multi channel music...SACD etc.... as the rears are general effect grade equipment, and subs are for explosions.... Now it gets really expensive, as all the extra channels need to be "musical" and have the same timing and rhythmic qualities as a 2 channel set-up.....

If your centre images that badly, then it's not as good as you think !!
And £1K a box etc, IMHO buys OK kit, x3 and the L+R speakers should be getting good.....but only worth it if you play music ...... For me the law of diminishing returns kicks in sooner on HT stuff than 2 channel.

So as I have a set-up that CAN do all of the above, perhaps I do have some idea

 

[squiffy]

If your centre images that badly, then it's not as good as you think !!

cough I think it is. It sounds superb, and adds a whole new dimension to 5.1 There has been debates that you don't need a centre or subwoofer for HT, again it's only hifi snobs that say that. I would like to see any hifi speaker around £1000 capable of outputting sub 20hz at 100db+ without distortion, and without your amplifer melting.

http://www.kef.com/history/2000/monitorseries/model200.asp

I'm not into SACD/DVD-Audio but I do have a few concert DVD-Video's, they sound pretty damn good. Again it's about ambiance.. It's up to you how much quality you want to put into surrounds, you can get something the M&K SS-150THX or even the larger 13 driver M&K tripoles. I've drawn the line at £600-£800 surrounds.

I mean £1K second-hand/ex-demo, most of my stuff has been bought that way, or at a huge discount. How does 75% off a brand new DAC sound?

 

[9designs2]

Sorry typo, meant if your Left and Right image that bad........Mine have no problem locking onto a central image.

How many Subs less than £1000 are musical ????

SACD is NOT just about ambiance, the sounds is mixed to multi channel, so so instruments are actually played from various channels, hence the need for the all to be good.


I'm currently running Dynaudio, 42's as rear, 122Centre and my own L+R, which use the same drive units, (so all speakers use identical units) which I've developed over the years, and is now running active.... the centre will active some time soon as well.....

 

[squiffy]

Sorry typo, meant if your Left and Right image that bad........Mine have no problem locking onto a central image.

How many Subs less than £1000 are musical ????

SACD is NOT just about ambiance, the sounds is mixed to multi channel, so so instruments are actually played from various channels, hence the need for the all to be good.

No my main speakers "aren't that bad" stereo imaging is superb (Kef Reference Q drivers) but with the centre enabled it adds a further dimension to the sound experience. L-C-R panning is better than straight stereo as you would expect. Speech, musical effects/other SFX come directly from the screen.

Please no "you don't need a centre" discussions.

What do you class as a "musical" subwoofer? My subwoofer sounds fine for both movies and music, and you can't tell it's on, the integration between mains and sub is perfect. Compared to my old subwoofer- a Rel Storm, which was rated 5 stars but I'd give it 3, this one is far better.

All my speakers are good, just the fronts are of a slightly higher quality, but like I said because rears/sides are not so obvious you can skimp on the quality a little.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

I'm astounded that this thread is still continuing.

As for the comment of
"I would like to see any hifi speaker around £1000 capable of outputting sub 20hz at 100db+ without distortion, and without your amplifer melting."

, well I'd love to hear a set of HT speakers capable of actually having any meaning levels of dynamics or coherence to match my speakers, which cost just slightly more than that. BTW, mine don't get down to 20hz, the are already down -6dbs at 28hz, though they are more than a little capable across the rest of the range.

Back to my earlier comment. The simple fact is that by splitting funds across more channels, each of those channels will obviously have less spent on it. Which part of that doesn't make sense?

 

[squiffy]

The simple fact is that by splitting funds across more channels, each of those channels will obviously have less spent on it. Which part of that doesn't make sense?

It makes sense. It's that given stereo or multi-channel for films, give me the multi-channel system. Since it's a hobby/interest then the extra expensive really is irrelevent to people into it, if you like it, and want it you'll pay for it. If you can afford to, then why limit yourself to 2 channel just because?

If you have that sort of expendible money on your Hi-Fi, what's another £10,000 or so for the HT?

cost just slightly more than that. BTW, mine don't get down to 20hz, the are already down -6dbs at 28hz

Then how do you get the full audio spectrum from film soundtracks? Many film LFE tracks go down to 10hz, can your amp and speakers handle that at reference levels? No so you need a subwoofer, unless you want distortion city?

 

[hardc0re_tid]

In the home, you can get a better experience with £10k than you would get in a cinema. Think about where you sit, other people etc etc and you have a much, much better place to be as well as the audio quality being tailored exactly to your desires. A 100k system would be rather good indeed.

By the way, Mr_S, when I was describing mine I was thinking more along the lines of a system that was as good as I would ever need or want for the stereo side of things which I would then extend to 7.1. That way, my stereo wouldnt be compromised.

lol my vue cinema Belfast, now bought by storm, only had the left channel working last time i was there, and the front was on and off like a yo yo, and this was in the VIP screen, mmmm. leather recliners!