Moving to 4.0 or 5.0 or 7.0 from 2.0

Forum for all multichannel discussions (SACD, AV etc) and Movie discussions.
Geoff.R.G
Posts: 1562
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Denham UK
Has thanked: 132 times
Been thanked: 476 times
Great Britain

Re: Moving to 4.0 or 5.0 or 7.0 from 2.0

Unread post by Geoff.R.G »

:grin: :grin: :grin:

jammy395
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Moving to 4.0 or 5.0 or 7.0 from 2.0

Unread post by jammy395 »

slinger wrote:As you seem so fond of saying, So what about answering my question. :epop:

I will of course understand if it embarrasses you or you find it a tad inconvenient
Tch tch :naughty: Patience is a virtue Slinger. :lol:

Aiwa and Panasonic AV amps - Panasonic and Samsung Soundbars.
I simply thought you were talking bollocks cause I disbelieved your 10 x as good
as statement.....Twice as good might have been fair.

As for embarrassing me, no fukin chance, last time I felt the slight flush of embarassment was in 78 when my dog shat all over the vets (full) waiting room.
and who could blame Corrie he was in for the snip...... :animals-dogrun: :guiness;

PS...If you truly believe size is a factor to good sound quality perhaps you should try an AP20 or Cubettes. ;)

User avatar
Lindsayt
Posts: 4213
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:06 pm
Has thanked: 1079 times
Been thanked: 692 times
Nauru

Re: Moving to 4.0 or 5.0 or 7.0 from 2.0

Unread post by Lindsayt »

Yep, and everyone should try 18" or bigger woofers. :idea:

Frasernash
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Moving to 4.0 or 5.0 or 7.0 from 2.0

Unread post by Frasernash »

Lindsayt wrote:Yep, and everyone should try 18" or bigger woofers. :idea:
would they work in a medium sized room of sat 5mx5m I found my old 5.1 AV system never worked and got a Yamaha sound projector which in some ways was better and a lot more simple this Dolby Atmos sounds like marketing spin as it's designed for Hugh spaces.

User avatar
Lindsayt
Posts: 4213
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:06 pm
Has thanked: 1079 times
Been thanked: 692 times
Nauru

Re: Moving to 4.0 or 5.0 or 7.0 from 2.0

Unread post by Lindsayt »

Oh yes, 18" or bigger woofers can work well in small to medium rooms - assuming the midrange and treble drivers are up to the task.
I'll only be using two or three 15" drivers to start off with when I move to a multi-channel AV system. I'll see how they get on. If I see visible cone excursion for the all too common Hollywood rumbly effects I'll get more bass cone area / some poxy dedicated sub.

Is Dolby Atmos really designed for huge spaces? Most the photos I've seen on the AVforum of Atmos systems have been medium sized rooms. I have a large room.


I find the whole AV area full of gimmicks and this years must have technology that gets superceded a couple of years later.
For example 3D was all the rage for a while. Never bothered with it myself (being in the Mark Kermode school of 3D). Now it's moved on to UHD 4K. Well there's no way I'm spending eight grand swapping my projector for a 4k one.

But I do realise that my family's film enjoyment might be enhanced by moving from a 2.0 system to a 4.0 or 5.0 or 5.0.2 system. So I'm willing to spend a few hundred to make that happen.

User avatar
slinger
Posts: 9233
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:30 pm
Location: The Garden of England
Has thanked: 4567 times
Been thanked: 3118 times
EUROPEAN_UNION

Re: Moving to 4.0 or 5.0 or 7.0 from 2.0

Unread post by slinger »

3D has come on in leaps and bounds but some studios still can't seem to get the hang of it. As a "gimmick" example we watched Pacific Rim and I swear every scene had to have rain or dust or something swirling about just so you knew it was in 3D. The Marvel Universe (X-Men, Thor, Avengers etc.) on the other hand really do it consistently well and I wouldn't buy them in any other format. The Star Trek reboot seems to have got it right too.

Atmos was conceived for theatres, but can be scaled down for domestic rooms. I'll quote this bit from Wikipedia...
Dolby Atmos technology allows up to 128 audio tracks plus associated spatial audio description metadata (most notably, location or pan automation data) to be distributed to theaters for optimal, dynamic rendering to loudspeakers based on the theater capabilities. Each audio track can be assigned to an audio channel, the traditional format for distribution, or to an audio "object." Audio tracks that are assigned to channels, such as ambient sounds or center dialogues, are pre-mixed to a "7.1.4" multichannel format: Dolby Atmos home theaters can be built upon traditional 5.1 and 7.1 layouts. For Dolby Atmos, the nomenclature differs slightly: a 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos system is a traditional 7.1 layout with four overhead or Dolby Atmos enabled speakers
You can read the whole thing here...
Amps - NVA P50, AP30, A40, Stanislav Palo Tube Headphone Amp BB 85
Speakers - Monitor Audio Silver RX2
Cables - NVA LS1+LS3, SSC, Gotham S/PDIF, IBRA Optical
Digital - NAD C516BEE, SONY ST-SDB900 DAB TUNER, TEAC UD-H01 DAC
Analogue - Pro-Ject Debut Carbon Esprit SB, Graham Slee Gram Amp 2 Phono
Cans - Grado SR80, ATH-M50X

User avatar
Lindsayt
Posts: 4213
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:06 pm
Has thanked: 1079 times
Been thanked: 692 times
Nauru

Re: Moving to 4.0 or 5.0 or 7.0 from 2.0

Unread post by Lindsayt »

I had an interesting conversation when I popped into 7oaks today to see if they had any deals.
He said that a Denon 3300 would be significantly better sounding than a 4200 because it was 2nd generation and has more processing power. He could be right. Or it could be bullshit. Trouble is, I'm not really into AV enough to start baking-off receivers with my speakers. And I've not found anyone whose judgement I'd trust on which out of those two to go for.

He was aghast when I said I'd be starting with a 5.0.2 set-up that may grow into a 5.0.4. He told me that I should get a sub. I told him that I had speakers with 15" woofers and couldn't see the point in getting a sub with a 10" or 12" driver. At one point in our conversation he asked me why I kept mentioning driver size? He said that he didn't even know the driver size of most of the speakers that he sold. His thoughts were that a dedicated sub, even if it was a 6" one would sound better for AV than a system without a sub, even if it had 15" drivers. He said that a receiver wouldn't send the whole bass to my main speakers in a 5.0 set-up. He could be right. If he is right I'd see that as failure of the receivers - which are obviously geared up for the typical user with their stupid little Kef type AV set of speakers.

From my point of view, my intention is to start with a 5.0.2 system and to keep an open mind and try a 5.1.2 system.

Where the conversation got farcical, was when he asked me what my main speakers were and I said "EV Sentries". He then started telling me that he didn't stock speakers like that as the market had moved on and that he sold speakers that people wanted to buy and that people no longer wanted speakers that sounded like them. He then started describing the Sentries as if they were some type of woolly imprecise vintagey sounding speakers. I stopped him and told him about how I'd baked them off against modern speakers and what the results were. He then changed tack and said that people no longer wanted large speakers - a point with which I agreed and added that my speakers were too ugly for most people.


My current thoughts are that I may well get the cheapest Atmos receiver I can get now. And then wait a couple of years and then look out for a 2nd hand Denon 6300 or equivalent.
I really don't like buying audio equipment that depreciates.
And I have a feeling that my speakers with the cheapest shit receiver will sound better than a top of the range £2k to £3k receiver with a fucking wank Kef R100 5.1.2 speaker package.

Daniel Quinn
Posts: 8586
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:16 am
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 399 times

Re: Moving to 4.0 or 5.0 or 7.0 from 2.0

Unread post by Daniel Quinn »

You have far more patience than me , I would have told him, he knew less about good sound quality than me and it aint my bleeding job !!! I am however an arse.

If the quality of the receiver is governed by processing power and it will split frequencies to individual drivers it is in effect a glorified active crossover.

I am struggling to see how an a20/p20 and a pair of cubbettes or doc modified will not sound better .

User avatar
slinger
Posts: 9233
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:30 pm
Location: The Garden of England
Has thanked: 4567 times
Been thanked: 3118 times
EUROPEAN_UNION

Re: Moving to 4.0 or 5.0 or 7.0 from 2.0

Unread post by slinger »

Looking at the user manual for the X4200 it seems you can set a crossover frequency for individual speakers and...
Sound below the crossover frequency is cut off from the output of the speakers set in “Small”. This cut off bass frequency is output from the subwoofer or front speakers.
SOURCE(S)
http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX4200W/EU/E ... mloggd.php
http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX4200W/EU/E ... MLfvunedcc

If those links don't work the manual is here... http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX4200W/EU/EN/index.php

Look under Settings>Manual Setup>Crossovers and Settings>Manual Setup>Bass.

Google is your friend.
Amps - NVA P50, AP30, A40, Stanislav Palo Tube Headphone Amp BB 85
Speakers - Monitor Audio Silver RX2
Cables - NVA LS1+LS3, SSC, Gotham S/PDIF, IBRA Optical
Digital - NAD C516BEE, SONY ST-SDB900 DAB TUNER, TEAC UD-H01 DAC
Analogue - Pro-Ject Debut Carbon Esprit SB, Graham Slee Gram Amp 2 Phono
Cans - Grado SR80, ATH-M50X

antonio66
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Moving to 4.0 or 5.0 or 7.0 from 2.0

Unread post by antonio66 »

Sorry Lindsayt but I bet you made that salesmans day. :lol: Again it may sound like I've lost the plot but why not go back to your original idea of the cheaper pre and use your power amps just to see what that sounds like. You may find out whether indeed you need a sub or not.

Post Reply