What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?
-
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore but he would need 3 of those amps to have surround sound, assuming a powered sub.
Not to mention what the power drain might be from all of that. Granted it could be very close to what I have today for power use.. I'm not entirely sure.
But 4 powersupplies vs one, I expect some inefficiencies to make 4 require more more even if all other things are equal - but I do leave the possibility that these are so much more efficient vs my Pioneer to make it negligible.
no no, i missed surround sound requirements, my fault. no reason to have that many amps. just go up until you find the amp that covers your needs. i thought you already had speakers too
I have five monoblocks in case I use them for surround sound
that certainly works and would sound great
It does a good job. Used to have a full B&W system too, back before they went consumer.
b&w was good stuff too
Nothing compared to my Totems, though.
who makes your totems, i'm not familiar with them?
Totem makes them. Hand made speaker vendor from Montreal.
-
-
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender They have a 5 channel amp that's 499. That would knock out the amp side, but I think your needs would be easily met by a simple, all-in-one AV receiver.
So is there any real benefit to using a $600 processor and a $500 amp at this level compared to my $600 receiver?
Also, what is the life expectancy from either the processor or the amp?
the benefit will be better sound and longer lasting equipment. when you bunch everything up together in a receiver you will get 5-10 years from them on average because of all the heat. with separate components you will get double and longer. I have a friend who has Mcintosh and those must be approaching 30-40 years by now and still work great. receivers just don't last that long because of the heat build up
Not exactly a fair comparison with Mcintosh there.
I got 10 years out of my last receiver, and I replaced it not because it failed, but because I wanted/needed 4K passthrough. Heck come to think of it, I have a 20+ year old Pioneer receiver in the garage running that setup just fine.
If, if I was an audiophile splitting this stuff out (even at the higher cost) would likely be valuable because I could retain the value of the less frequently swapped parts (amps, etc), while only swapping the parts that frequently get updated (processor).
But as mentioned, my receiver cost $600. That's it, one and done. The above listed processor alone is $600, then we tossed in $1600 for amps - trashing the listed $1500 budget.
Considering my needs, it's not providing real value to me personally. Those more into audio than I, Please enjoy the benefits of splitting those things out.
Understand that, its hardly ever fair when comparing against a Mcintosh. Anyway when i get time I will post again now that I know your requirements better.
I consider McIntosh a gateway product. Good stuff, but on the low end of hi fi mostly. Well known like stuff at Best Buy almost. Not quite, but in that range.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
cool i will check them out
-
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender They have a 5 channel amp that's 499. That would knock out the amp side, but I think your needs would be easily met by a simple, all-in-one AV receiver.
So is there any real benefit to using a $600 processor and a $500 amp at this level compared to my $600 receiver?
Also, what is the life expectancy from either the processor or the amp?
the benefit will be better sound and longer lasting equipment. when you bunch everything up together in a receiver you will get 5-10 years from them on average because of all the heat. with separate components you will get double and longer. I have a friend who has Mcintosh and those must be approaching 30-40 years by now and still work great. receivers just don't last that long because of the heat build up
Not exactly a fair comparison with Mcintosh there.
I got 10 years out of my last receiver, and I replaced it not because it failed, but because I wanted/needed 4K passthrough. Heck come to think of it, I have a 20+ year old Pioneer receiver in the garage running that setup just fine.
If, if I was an audiophile splitting this stuff out (even at the higher cost) would likely be valuable because I could retain the value of the less frequently swapped parts (amps, etc), while only swapping the parts that frequently get updated (processor).
But as mentioned, my receiver cost $600. That's it, one and done. The above listed processor alone is $600, then we tossed in $1600 for amps - trashing the listed $1500 budget.
Considering my needs, it's not providing real value to me personally. Those more into audio than I, Please enjoy the benefits of splitting those things out.
Understand that, its hardly ever fair when comparing against a Mcintosh. Anyway when i get time I will post again now that I know your requirements better.
I consider McIntosh a gateway product. Good stuff, but on the low end of hi fi mostly. Well known like stuff at Best Buy almost. Not quite, but in that range.
we may not be talking about the same company then. back in the 70's and 80's this stuff cost thousands for a single piece
-
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
Simple surround sound improvement tip... if you don't need it due to crappy seating, simply remove the center speaker for improved sound quality. The extra center channel is the biggest source of audio quality loss in those setups.
Well.... it's a detriment to 2 channel music. I would recommend getting a center channel that is a grade or two better than the other speakers, because that's where the dialog comes out when you're watching TV/movies. Placement is still key, so it depends on the seating arrangement as Scott said. But if you can mount all the speakers in the "right" places, a good center channel will improve things greatly.
My surround system has 4x Polk towers, 1x dual 6" + tweeter center, also Polk, and 1x Polk 150w / 12 inch powered sub. My cheap Harmon/Kardon receiver is soon to be replaced because the display died. Music system is an old Fisher receiver/amp (cheap and sounds amazing), some old JVC 3-way towers with 12" woofers and an old pair of Castle Durhams (audiophile grade bookshelf speakers from UK. I picked them up for $100 because they're beat up and they didn't know what they had).
-
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender They have a 5 channel amp that's 499. That would knock out the amp side, but I think your needs would be easily met by a simple, all-in-one AV receiver.
So is there any real benefit to using a $600 processor and a $500 amp at this level compared to my $600 receiver?
Also, what is the life expectancy from either the processor or the amp?
the benefit will be better sound and longer lasting equipment. when you bunch everything up together in a receiver you will get 5-10 years from them on average because of all the heat. with separate components you will get double and longer. I have a friend who has Mcintosh and those must be approaching 30-40 years by now and still work great. receivers just don't last that long because of the heat build up
Not exactly a fair comparison with Mcintosh there.
I got 10 years out of my last receiver, and I replaced it not because it failed, but because I wanted/needed 4K passthrough. Heck come to think of it, I have a 20+ year old Pioneer receiver in the garage running that setup just fine.
If, if I was an audiophile splitting this stuff out (even at the higher cost) would likely be valuable because I could retain the value of the less frequently swapped parts (amps, etc), while only swapping the parts that frequently get updated (processor).
But as mentioned, my receiver cost $600. That's it, one and done. The above listed processor alone is $600, then we tossed in $1600 for amps - trashing the listed $1500 budget.
Considering my needs, it's not providing real value to me personally. Those more into audio than I, Please enjoy the benefits of splitting those things out.
Understand that, its hardly ever fair when comparing against a Mcintosh. Anyway when i get time I will post again now that I know your requirements better.
I consider McIntosh a gateway product. Good stuff, but on the low end of hi fi mostly. Well known like stuff at Best Buy almost. Not quite, but in that range.
we may not be talking about the same company then. back in the 70's and 80's this stuff cost thousands for a single piece
So did B&W back then.
-
-
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender They have a 5 channel amp that's 499. That would knock out the amp side, but I think your needs would be easily met by a simple, all-in-one AV receiver.
So is there any real benefit to using a $600 processor and a $500 amp at this level compared to my $600 receiver?
Also, what is the life expectancy from either the processor or the amp?
the benefit will be better sound and longer lasting equipment. when you bunch everything up together in a receiver you will get 5-10 years from them on average because of all the heat. with separate components you will get double and longer. I have a friend who has Mcintosh and those must be approaching 30-40 years by now and still work great. receivers just don't last that long because of the heat build up
Not exactly a fair comparison with Mcintosh there.
I got 10 years out of my last receiver, and I replaced it not because it failed, but because I wanted/needed 4K passthrough. Heck come to think of it, I have a 20+ year old Pioneer receiver in the garage running that setup just fine.
If, if I was an audiophile splitting this stuff out (even at the higher cost) would likely be valuable because I could retain the value of the less frequently swapped parts (amps, etc), while only swapping the parts that frequently get updated (processor).
But as mentioned, my receiver cost $600. That's it, one and done. The above listed processor alone is $600, then we tossed in $1600 for amps - trashing the listed $1500 budget.
Considering my needs, it's not providing real value to me personally. Those more into audio than I, Please enjoy the benefits of splitting those things out.
Understand that, its hardly ever fair when comparing against a Mcintosh. Anyway when i get time I will post again now that I know your requirements better.
I consider McIntosh a gateway product. Good stuff, but on the low end of hi fi mostly. Well known like stuff at Best Buy almost. Not quite, but in that range.
we may not be talking about the same company then. back in the 70's and 80's this stuff cost thousands for a single piece
Same company. It's expensive, but not super high end. It's often used in AV shops to demo "higher than normal" quality gear. It's like a gateway drug, mostly. It's high end gear that creeps down into more normal commodity shops.
-
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
Well.... it's a detriment to 2 channel music. I would recommend getting a center channel that is a grade or two better than the other speakers, because that's where the dialog comes out when you're watching TV/movies. Placement is still key, so it depends on the seating arrangement as Scott said. But if you can mount all the speakers in the "right" places, a good center channel will improve things greatly.
agree with this
-
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender They have a 5 channel amp that's 499. That would knock out the amp side, but I think your needs would be easily met by a simple, all-in-one AV receiver.
So is there any real benefit to using a $600 processor and a $500 amp at this level compared to my $600 receiver?
Also, what is the life expectancy from either the processor or the amp?
the benefit will be better sound and longer lasting equipment. when you bunch everything up together in a receiver you will get 5-10 years from them on average because of all the heat. with separate components you will get double and longer. I have a friend who has Mcintosh and those must be approaching 30-40 years by now and still work great. receivers just don't last that long because of the heat build up
Not exactly a fair comparison with Mcintosh there.
I got 10 years out of my last receiver, and I replaced it not because it failed, but because I wanted/needed 4K passthrough. Heck come to think of it, I have a 20+ year old Pioneer receiver in the garage running that setup just fine.
If, if I was an audiophile splitting this stuff out (even at the higher cost) would likely be valuable because I could retain the value of the less frequently swapped parts (amps, etc), while only swapping the parts that frequently get updated (processor).
But as mentioned, my receiver cost $600. That's it, one and done. The above listed processor alone is $600, then we tossed in $1600 for amps - trashing the listed $1500 budget.
Considering my needs, it's not providing real value to me personally. Those more into audio than I, Please enjoy the benefits of splitting those things out.
Understand that, its hardly ever fair when comparing against a Mcintosh. Anyway when i get time I will post again now that I know your requirements better.
I consider McIntosh a gateway product. Good stuff, but on the low end of hi fi mostly. Well known like stuff at Best Buy almost. Not quite, but in that range.
we may not be talking about the same company then. back in the 70's and 80's this stuff cost thousands for a single piece
So did B&W back then.
your right
-
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
Simple surround sound improvement tip... if you don't need it due to crappy seating, simply remove the center speaker for improved sound quality. The extra center channel is the biggest source of audio quality loss in those setups.
Well.... it's a detriment to 2 channel music. I would recommend getting a center channel that is a grade or two better than the other speakers, because that's where the dialog comes out when you're watching TV/movies. Placement is still key, so it depends on the seating arrangement as Scott said. But if you can mount all the speakers in the "right" places, a good center channel will improve things greatly.
My surround system has 4x Polk towers, 1x dual 6" + tweeter center, also Polk, and 1x Polk 150w / 12 inch powered sub. My cheap Harmon/Kardon receiver is soon to be replaced because the display died. Music system is an old Fisher receiver/amp (cheap and sounds amazing), some old JVC 3-way towers with 12" woofers and an old pair of Castle Durhams (audiophile grade bookshelf speakers from UK. I picked them up for $100 because they're beat up and they didn't know what they had).
Even that the voice comes from there, you want it as high quality as possible and the center channel detracts from that. The human ear doesn't work in such a way as to make it sound better even with the speaker, even with the intention of it coming from there. You can get better blending and clarity from removing the speaker.
-
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
other speakers, because that's where the dialog comes out when you're watching TV/movies. Placement is still key, so it
My current system is 2 in wall B&W front wall speakers and a B&W in wall center channel. I have a pair of rears, I added them last year, don't recall the brand. I don't have a sub yet. Wife is not looking forward to me adding one.
-
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender They have a 5 channel amp that's 499. That would knock out the amp side, but I think your needs would be easily met by a simple, all-in-one AV receiver.
So is there any real benefit to using a $600 processor and a $500 amp at this level compared to my $600 receiver?
Also, what is the life expectancy from either the processor or the amp?
the benefit will be better sound and longer lasting equipment. when you bunch everything up together in a receiver you will get 5-10 years from them on average because of all the heat. with separate components you will get double and longer. I have a friend who has Mcintosh and those must be approaching 30-40 years by now and still work great. receivers just don't last that long because of the heat build up
Not exactly a fair comparison with Mcintosh there.
I got 10 years out of my last receiver, and I replaced it not because it failed, but because I wanted/needed 4K passthrough. Heck come to think of it, I have a 20+ year old Pioneer receiver in the garage running that setup just fine.
If, if I was an audiophile splitting this stuff out (even at the higher cost) would likely be valuable because I could retain the value of the less frequently swapped parts (amps, etc), while only swapping the parts that frequently get updated (processor).
But as mentioned, my receiver cost $600. That's it, one and done. The above listed processor alone is $600, then we tossed in $1600 for amps - trashing the listed $1500 budget.
Considering my needs, it's not providing real value to me personally. Those more into audio than I, Please enjoy the benefits of splitting those things out.
Understand that, its hardly ever fair when comparing against a Mcintosh. Anyway when i get time I will post again now that I know your requirements better.
I consider McIntosh a gateway product. Good stuff, but on the low end of hi fi mostly. Well known like stuff at Best Buy almost. Not quite, but in that range.
we may not be talking about the same company then. back in the 70's and 80's this stuff cost thousands for a single piece
So did B&W back then.
Yes, they moved into Best Buy a while ago. Still good, but nothing like they used to be.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
Simple surround sound improvement tip... if you don't need it due to crappy seating, simply remove the center speaker for improved sound quality. The extra center channel is the biggest source of audio quality loss in those setups.
Well.... it's a detriment to 2 channel music. I would recommend getting a center channel that is a grade or two better than the other speakers, because that's where the dialog comes out when you're watching TV/movies. Placement is still key, so it depends on the seating arrangement as Scott said. But if you can mount all the speakers in the "right" places, a good center channel will improve things greatly.
My surround system has 4x Polk towers, 1x dual 6" + tweeter center, also Polk, and 1x Polk 150w / 12 inch powered sub. My cheap Harmon/Kardon receiver is soon to be replaced because the display died. Music system is an old Fisher receiver/amp (cheap and sounds amazing), some old JVC 3-way towers with 12" woofers and an old pair of Castle Durhams (audiophile grade bookshelf speakers from UK. I picked them up for $100 because they're beat up and they didn't know what they had).
Even that the voice comes from there, you want it as high quality as possible and the center channel detracts from that. The human ear doesn't work in such a way as to make it sound better even with the speaker, even with the intention of it coming from there. You can get better blending and clarity from removing the speaker.
Assuming the audio mixers mix the sound with the expectation of a center channel - how does that audio get blended to the mains?
-
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
other speakers, because that's where the dialog comes out when you're watching TV/movies. Placement is still key, so it
My current system is 2 in wall B&W front wall speakers and a B&W in wall center channel. I have a pair of rears, I added them last year, don't recall the brand. I don't have a sub yet. Wife is not looking forward to me adding one.
So your wife hates the idea of having a true cinematic experience at home? Surround sound is all wrong when you leave out the .1 part.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender They have a 5 channel amp that's 499. That would knock out the amp side, but I think your needs would be easily met by a simple, all-in-one AV receiver.
So is there any real benefit to using a $600 processor and a $500 amp at this level compared to my $600 receiver?
Also, what is the life expectancy from either the processor or the amp?
the benefit will be better sound and longer lasting equipment. when you bunch everything up together in a receiver you will get 5-10 years from them on average because of all the heat. with separate components you will get double and longer. I have a friend who has Mcintosh and those must be approaching 30-40 years by now and still work great. receivers just don't last that long because of the heat build up
Not exactly a fair comparison with Mcintosh there.
I got 10 years out of my last receiver, and I replaced it not because it failed, but because I wanted/needed 4K passthrough. Heck come to think of it, I have a 20+ year old Pioneer receiver in the garage running that setup just fine.
If, if I was an audiophile splitting this stuff out (even at the higher cost) would likely be valuable because I could retain the value of the less frequently swapped parts (amps, etc), while only swapping the parts that frequently get updated (processor).
But as mentioned, my receiver cost $600. That's it, one and done. The above listed processor alone is $600, then we tossed in $1600 for amps - trashing the listed $1500 budget.
Considering my needs, it's not providing real value to me personally. Those more into audio than I, Please enjoy the benefits of splitting those things out.
Understand that, its hardly ever fair when comparing against a Mcintosh. Anyway when i get time I will post again now that I know your requirements better.
I consider McIntosh a gateway product. Good stuff, but on the low end of hi fi mostly. Well known like stuff at Best Buy almost. Not quite, but in that range.
we may not be talking about the same company then. back in the 70's and 80's this stuff cost thousands for a single piece
Same company. It's expensive, but not super high end. It's often used in AV shops to demo "higher than normal" quality gear. It's like a gateway drug, mostly. It's high end gear that creeps down into more normal commodity shops.
yes expensive but not crazy. we are talking 5-10k a piece. super expensive stuff can be several times that but not sound any noticeably better. I have a higher opinion of them than you do and thats fine. every listener is different
-
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
other speakers, because that's where the dialog comes out when you're watching TV/movies. Placement is still key, so it
My current system is 2 in wall B&W front wall speakers and a B&W in wall center channel. I have a pair of rears, I added them last year, don't recall the brand. I don't have a sub yet. Wife is not looking forward to me adding one.
So your wife hates the idea of having a true cinematic experience at home? Surround sound is all wrong when you leave out the .1 part.
My wife couldn't see any difference when we upgraded to HD TV.. she finally admitted a noticeable difference going to 4K.
-
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
other speakers, because that's where the dialog comes out when you're watching TV/movies. Placement is still key, so it
My current system is 2 in wall B&W front wall speakers and a B&W in wall center channel. I have a pair of rears, I added them last year, don't recall the brand. I don't have a sub yet. Wife is not looking forward to me adding one.
So your wife hates the idea of having a true cinematic experience at home? Surround sound is all wrong when you leave out the .1 part.
Yeah, it's kind of needed as it is the effects channel.
-
@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:
Simple surround sound improvement tip... if you don't need it due to crappy seating, simply remove the center speaker for improved sound quality. The extra center channel is the biggest source of audio quality loss in those setups.
Well.... it's a detriment to 2 channel music. I would recommend getting a center channel that is a grade or two better than the other speakers, because that's where the dialog comes out when you're watching TV/movies. Placement is still key, so it depends on the seating arrangement as Scott said. But if you can mount all the speakers in the "right" places, a good center channel will improve things greatly.
My surround system has 4x Polk towers, 1x dual 6" + tweeter center, also Polk, and 1x Polk 150w / 12 inch powered sub. My cheap Harmon/Kardon receiver is soon to be replaced because the display died. Music system is an old Fisher receiver/amp (cheap and sounds amazing), some old JVC 3-way towers with 12" woofers and an old pair of Castle Durhams (audiophile grade bookshelf speakers from UK. I picked them up for $100 because they're beat up and they didn't know what they had).
Even that the voice comes from there, you want it as high quality as possible and the center channel detracts from that. The human ear doesn't work in such a way as to make it sound better even with the speaker, even with the intention of it coming from there. You can get better blending and clarity from removing the speaker.
Assuming the audio mixers mix the sound with the expectation of a center channel - how does that audio get blended to the mains?
By not blending it that way, obviously.
