What can the average enthusiest do to get A+ HT?

Unsound: Yes, i do believe that those doing the mixing for multi-channel video typically provide better results than what we get out of multi-channel music recordings. The primary reason for this is that movies have sounds from every direction whereas music is typically experienced with the band spread out in front of you. This is probably why Paul Klipsch wanted us to go to a 3 channel system rather than two.

As a side note, some of the worst multi-channel music recordings are those that are "antiques" that are getting re-mixed. Some of these engineers are going berserk twisting knobs and playing games with spatial info. The presentation becomes completely un-natural. Sean
>

Something you all might want remember,

This thread was origionally asking about anA+ HT setup, as in HOME THEATER.

Personally i think multichannel music is way too finiky to do, i find the surround speakers annoying. Give me nmusic in 2ch, leave the surrounds for theater.

Building an A+ HOME THEATER is one thing, however, creating a satisfying MULTICHANNEL MUSIC system is an entirely different beast.

Personally, MY HT will be built with Theater in mind from the ground up, with no consideration for Multichannel music, that is alot more headache than i think it is worth.

My MUSIC system will be built for Music only. 2 channels, thats all.

Its kinda like those new cell phones. You CAN put a camera in a phone, but you will suffer performance on both aspects.

HT, MTA (multi channel audio) and 2CH all use the same basic elements. Speakers, Amplifiers, Source, Etc. But that is where the similarity ends.

Think of it like a car. a HUM-V costs about as much as a Dodge Viper. Two very high performance vehicals, but the performance and intended use of each design was vastly different.

Keep it all seperate, unless you dont mind blowing a crapload of cash, pulling out your hair, and have years of free time to get a system that can do all three equally as well

M2C

Slappy, I can understand the reality that both you and Sean bring to point about video soundtrack vs. music playback, but, I don't understand the philosphy. If the recording engineers don't do their job, there is little we can do, to do it for them. If the recording engineers do their job, then our job would still be the same, whether there is video accompaniment or not. The medium is the same, the vehicle is the same, the load is the same and the desired speed is the same. The only difference I can think of is that in HT we now have the additonal challange of coordinating the sonic imaging and soundstage to placement and scale of a constant reference, the videoscape. Or visa versa, either way it seems daunting to me.

Multichannel music systems and home theatre are the same beast if you can eleminate the screens effects on the center imaging. I have an eighty two inch firehawk on a hindge that folds back to the ceiling and when retracted , I have what ammounts to a dedicated multichannel dvd a sacd system . Drop the screen and its a home theatre. They can and do coexist quite comfortably .

Brainwater, i saw that on yer pics, that is pretty slick dude.

I guess my point is this, Multichannel music is more of an audiophile thing than an every day joe thing.

HT is something designed for every day joes. The reason of the surrounds is to submerse you in the movie, and the point of the center is to basically for the most part, eliminate finicky speaker placement for imaging.

i dont know if im just sounding like an idiot here, but any idiot can make a surround sound setup sound better than the local cineplex.

It takes alot more effort and thought to pull off Multi-channel music, without making it sound annoying.

WIth Multichannel music, the focus is the music.

With HT the ocus is the movie, the surround sound gives a good "gee wiz" effect. With HT, you have basic "background music" and dialogue with some sound effects.

Yeah, you can spend a hoopla of cash on a HT system and make it good for everything, but when you are watching a movie the primary focus is visual, with audio a very close second, but second none the less.

Ive seen some pretty high cost HT setups, Nothing like Brainwaters, but close to the 80k mark. Ive seen alot of really crappy ones too, as well as plenyy of 10k HT setups.
My experience with DVD-A on the 10K and crappy HT rigs is a "neat effect" but nothing close to what you will get with a good 50K+ Surround setup.

I have a co-worker who is really into this stuff. Oddly enough he doesent like this website, i guess somone rubbed him the wrong way. Either way, his HT ran him about 6 times what my last HT rig cost me. We both used good setup, but his was way more expencive. For Movie performance his rig really diddnt sound better than mine. For 2 ch and DVD-A, you bet yer ass it sounded better than mine.

However, when movie performance comes in, the difference between the 50k setup and the 10k setupin my opinion is rather marginal, if not barely noticeable.

In the examples above, im talking about the audio aspect only, not video gear.

Af for the recording engineers job, for movies yer talking about different shots, different angles, changing angles, "gee wizz" effects, and visual bombardment. The sound must to the camera's perspective to create a realistic effect.

With Multichannel audio, they try to recreate the sence of being at a concert or a show, with a fixed point of focus, which is alot harder to pull off, because it is sustained and the illusion is far easier to shatter with bad engineering.

Just my thoughts on it. I think a HT can be real sweet, but if you dont care too farts about multichannel music, then creating a realistic surround experience is easier due to the chaotic nature of camera angles and quick effects.

A street magician can do a quick card trick and blow yer mind, but it takes a brilliant magician to pull off a trick that involves the audience giving prolonged focus of the matter at hand and still make it convincing.

Just my opinion. I dont claim to have golden ears, better than most, which is probably less than many on the gon, HT is just easier to make convincing than Multichannel audio. That is why i consider them different beasts.

same equipment, same ideas, but the difference in subject matter, and the difficulty to pull off mulitchannel compared to HT, just makes me think that they are different beasts.

Peace! :)