Dumbest anti-surround argument you've heard

[Tres Discrete]

“I only have 2 ears”
If you have ever lived or worked in Manhattan you will know that sounds can and will come at you from multiple directions simultaneously - despite your paltry 2 ears
“Not the way the artist originally intended it to be heard”. That might be true if every artist was given the option and turned it down. I am guessing many artists would enjoy the expanded possibilities to get their point across - a broader palette, if you will

 

[MidiMagic]

I only attend cocktail parties with [out] you.

I do not imbibe, I did not inhale, and I did [not] have sexual relations with that woman.
My favorite president Clinton quote ,,,
“That all depends upon what you think the meaning of is, is.”

Just for fun:

"is" is "is".

 

[marcb]

Dumbest I’ve ever heard?

“Surround doesn’t do as good a job reproducing live sound as stereo.”

 

[Newton John]

The space and cost arguments are not that dumb. In my previous house, I was fortunate to have a living room with a stereo music system and an another with a 5.1 AV setup. It was my long term plan to add surround channels to the stereo system which had by far the best sound quality of the two. I have accumulated a fair sized colection of surround music.

Since moving house recently, I now only have one lounge that accommodates the stereo hifi. I have been trying out various options for adding surround to this and the results were excellent. Due to the depth and quality of the front speakers, I think I can manage without a centre channel and sub. However, I am hesitating about going ahead for two reasons.

Firstly, the stereo setup is already quite intrusive in the room - big speakers and lots of amplifiers. Extra surround speakers and electronics that are capable of keeping pace with the front channels are just too much clutter in the room for my wife's minimalist tastes. She's tolerant by nature, but I fear that I may be asking too much of her.

Secondly, the funds I'd have tied up in the surround channels could be used to further improve the stereo setup. I can't afford to do both.

I am not sure whether to push ahead with quad or maintain domestic harmony and maximise stereo sound quality.

 

[jaybird100]

The space and cost arguments are not that dumb. In my previous house, I was fortunate to have a living room with a stereo music system and an another with a 5.1 AV setup. It was my long term plan to add surround channels to the stereo system which had by far the best sound quality of the two. I have accumulated a fair sized colection of surround music.

Since moving house recently, I now only have one lounge that accommodates the stereo hifi. I have been trying out various options for adding surround to this and the results were excellent. Due to the depth and quality of the front speakers, I think I can manage without a centre channel and sub. However, I am hesitating about going ahead for two reasons.

Firstly, the stereo setup is already quite intrusive in the room - big speakers and lots of amplifiers. Extra surround speakers and electronics that are capable of keeping pace with the front channels are just too much clutter in the room for my wife's minimalist tastes. She's tolerant by nature, but I fear that I may be asking too much of her.

Secondly, the funds I'd have tied up in the surround channels could be used to further improve the stereo setup. I can't afford to do both.

I am not sure whether to push ahead with quad or maintain domestic harmony and maximise stereo sound quality.

I'm always amused about how, all of a sudden, the wife takes sole ownership of the living room. The husband wants to set up his audio system, his other passion besides wifey, and the NIMLRYD factor kicks in. (For the uninitiated, that stands for "Not in MY living room you don't!") Note the "my" there is capitalized for emphasis. Is there any middle ground? There can be, but it'll cost you! (Note... this is a probably poor attempt at humor over the situation, and no offense is intended.)

 

[esimms86]

The space and cost arguments are not that dumb. In my previous house, I was fortunate to have a living room with a stereo music system and an another with a 5.1 AV setup. It was my long term plan to add surround channels to the stereo system which had by far the best sound quality of the two. I have accumulated a fair sized colection of surround music.

Since moving house recently, I now only have one lounge that accommodates the stereo hifi. I have been trying out various options for adding surround to this and the results were excellent. Due to the depth and quality of the front speakers, I think I can manage without a centre channel and sub. However, I am hesitating about going ahead for two reasons.

Firstly, the stereo setup is already quite intrusive in the room - big speakers and lots of amplifiers. Extra surround speakers and electronics that are capable of keeping pace with the front channels are just too much clutter in the room for my wife's minimalist tastes. She's tolerant by nature, but I fear that I may be asking too much of her.

Secondly, the funds I'd have tied up in the surround channels could be used to further improve the stereo setup. I can't afford to do both.

I am not sure whether to push ahead with quad or maintain domestic harmony and maximise stereo sound quality.

Are in wall rears an option? Also, it sounds like your stereo system doesn’t really need an upgrade; it obviously depends on your priorities.

 

[Guy Robinson]

I'm always amused about how, all of a sudden, the wife takes sole ownership of the living room. The husband wants to set up his audio system, his other passion besides wifey, and the NIMLRYD factor kicks in. (For the uninitiated, that stands for "Not in MY living room you don't!") Note the "my" there is capitalized for emphasis. Is there any middle ground? There can be, but it'll cost you! (Note... this is a probably poor attempt at humor over the situation, and no offense is intended.)

This is why we all need a basement room that is OURS!!! My system is set-up to sound good not to look good. I have my 3 subwoofers placed where they sound good, and this means putting things where the wife never would. Every time she comes down to watch something she says "what a mess". But that's as far as that goes.

 

[Guy Robinson]

The space and cost arguments are not that dumb. In my previous house, I was fortunate to have a living room with a stereo music system and an another with a 5.1 AV setup. It was my long term plan to add surround channels to the stereo system which had by far the best sound quality of the two. I have accumulated a fair sized colection of surround music.

Since moving house recently, I now only have one lounge that accommodates the stereo hifi. I have been trying out various options for adding surround to this and the results were excellent. Due to the depth and quality of the front speakers, I think I can manage without a centre channel and sub. However, I am hesitating about going ahead for two reasons.

Firstly, the stereo setup is already quite intrusive in the room - big speakers and lots of amplifiers. Extra surround speakers and electronics that are capable of keeping pace with the front channels are just too much clutter in the room for my wife's minimalist tastes. She's tolerant by nature, but I fear that I may be asking too much of her.

Secondly, the funds I'd have tied up in the surround channels could be used to further improve the stereo setup. I can't afford to do both.

I am not sure whether to push ahead with quad or maintain domestic harmony and maximise stereo sound quality.

If you still like stereo go for that. I myself never listen in stereo anymore. Even stereo is "enhanced" into 7.1.

 

[wavelength]

This is why we all need a basement room that is OURS!!! My system is set-up to sound good not to look good. I have my 3 subwoofers placed where they sound good, and this means putting things where the wife never would. Every time she comes down to watch something she says "what a mess". But that's as far as that goes.

I hear you loud and clear. I have my basement audio room area about which she always says "it doesn't look so good over there" but we both know that she can't change anything there. BTW I just showed my wife this conversation and she got a good laugh..."so true" she said.

 

[Newton John]

Are in wall rears an option? Also, it sounds like your stereo system doesn’t really need an upgrade; it obviously depends on your priorities.

If you still like stereo go for that. I myself never listen in stereo anymore. Even stereo is "enhanced" into 7.1.

Thanks for the suggestions.

I need floorstanding speakers for surrounds so they have a decent chance of keeping up with the fronts.

Much as I like surround, I wouldn't want to be without stereo. As you both hint, I need to take a deep breath and jump one way or the other.

 

[jaybird100]

This is why we all need a basement room that is OURS!!! My system is set-up to sound good not to look good. I have my 3 subwoofers placed where they sound good, and this means putting things where the wife never would. Every time she comes down to watch something she says "what a mess". But that's as far as that goes.

Unfortunately, here in South Florida, basements are a problem. You could call them indoor swimming pools. We're so close to sea level that any attempt to dig a basement would be thwarted by that pesky water table.

 

[Soundfield]

This is why we all need a basement room that is OURS!!!

Rarely an option in the UK - I don't think I've ever known anyone who had such a thing.

 

[kfbkfb]

I just thought of this, Dolby Labs was able to begin reintroducing surround sound (non-logic Dolby Surround) about 5 years after quad sound failed in the marketplace, early magazine ads would provide some insight into how Dolby Labs did the marketing.

IIRC, they promoted surround sound for movies (and concert videos) rather than music.


Kirk Bayne

 

[jaybird100]

I just thought of this, Dolby Labs was able to begin reintroducing surround sound (non-logic Dolby Surround) about 5 years after quad sound failed in the marketplace, early magazine ads would provide some insight into how Dolby Labs did the marketing.

IIRC, they promoted surround sound for movies (and concert videos) rather than music.


Kirk Bayne

You're correct, Kirk. That initial Dolby Surround offered only 3 real channels; front left, front right, and a mono rear channel that was spread across two speakers. There was also a 7 kHz brick wall on the rears. No center, no subwoofer. You can imagine how bad that would sound for music.

The center and sub channels were part of the first generation Pro Logic, and were also needed for Dolby Digital. Although full range and with separation in Dolby Digital, the rears were still mono, and with the same 7 kHz limitation as original Dolby Surround.

Pro Logic II restored separation in the rears, also removing the brick wall. The rears were now also full range. More advanced logic steering improved overall channel separation.

 

[Tres Discrete]

I'm always amused about how, all of a sudden, the wife takes sole ownership of the living room. The husband wants to set up his audio system, his other passion besides wifey, and the NIMLRYD factor kicks in. (For the uninitiated, that stands for "Not in MY living room you don't!") Note the "my" there is capitalized for emphasis. Is there any middle ground? There can be, but it'll cost you! (Note... this is a probably poor attempt at humor over the situation, and no offense is intended.)

Many are familiar with the legendary Rene Descartes postulation “I think, therefore I am.”
Few are familiar with his lesser known but equally profound musing: “You can always get another betrothed, but you can’t always get a killer surround system.”
Food for thought

 

[jaybird100]

Many are familiar with the legendary Rene Descartes postulation “I think, therefore I am.”
Few are familiar with his lesser known but equally profound musing: “You can always get another betrothed, but you can’t always get a killer surround system.”
Food for thought

Excellent point.

 

[temporaryhuman]

'Music was made in stereo, so that is how it i suppoed to be heard'.

Sorry but most tracks are actualy mono then mixed to stereo, often with a widening plugin. Kick, bass vocal etc often mono before mixing.

 

[jaybird100]

Since the 60's, multi-track recording has been the norm. The number of tracks used has gradually increased over the years, allowing for better stereo and surround mixes. A good mixing engineer can do a great job in either format. One advantage, in my opinion, with mixing for surround is that more channels allow for more of the music that's recorded to actually reach the listener. Mixing in stereo, without making the mix sound cluttered, means some of what was recorded has to be eliminated to make it fit. The additional channels in surround open up a lot of additional possibilities.

 

[audiomaster]

Many are familiar with the legendary Rene Descartes postulation “I think, therefore I am.”
Few are familiar with his lesser known but equally profound musing: “You can always get another betrothed, but you can’t always get a killer surround system.”
Food for thought

But then you have to find a buyer for that "used betrothal". Harder than getting rid of a used but still working receiver or speakers. it's a marketing problem for sure!

 

[ar surround]

"My dog chewed up all of my surround sound discs."