Home theatre- DTS or Dolby Digital, what's your preference?
23 April 2011, 10:40 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by f1_fan; 23 April 2011 at 10:43 PM.
23 April 2011, 10:40 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
DD I don't think he's talking nonsense but rather he is happy with what he's got and doesn't want to mess around with an already well integrated setup.
As THX certification has been mentioned here I think its worth mentioning that I think its a load of bollox and a good way for companies to ask a premium for vanilla products.
As THX certification has been mentioned here I think its worth mentioning that I think its a load of bollox and a good way for companies to ask a premium for vanilla products.
23 April 2011, 10:51 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Not on their website they don't. Or not that I can find. As I understand it the standard involves measuring the performance of a system against a set of pre defined credentials and making sure the system matches or exceeds them. For cinemas this meant a perforated sceen and a floating floor for the midrange/bass system etc. as otherwise it couldn't achieve the required standard so in that respect the standard does have a bearing on the equioment used, but nowhere does it say 'thous shalt use a REL subwoofer'
My Dad has floorstanders and mine are THX sub/sat. His arguably has better cohesion and a far more relaxed, laid back effortless, fuller sound. This is what you want in HiFi. Mine has far more precision, clarity and detail due to the smaller cabinet. This means that the base needs to be handled elsewhere, hence a sub. Its all very well talking about bass sound but theres usually a compromise to be had. For movies with sudden, explosive sounds, where precision placements, dynamics and clarity are required a sub/sat is the only set up that cuts the mustard.
23 April 2011, 10:52 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
23 April 2011, 10:56 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its been a while but if I remember correctly the THX badge adorns plenty of sub/sats but not on any floorstanders that are designed to handle base a well.
My Dad has floorstanders and mine are THX sub/sat. His arguably has better cohesion and a far more relaxed, laid back effortless, fuller sound. This is what you want in HiFi. Mine has far more precision, clarity and detail due to the smaller cabinet. This means that the base needs to be handled elsewhere, hence a sub. Its all very well talking about bass sound but theres usually a compromise to be had. For movies with sudden, explosive sounds, where precision placements, dynamics and clarity are required a sub/sat is the only set up that cuts the mustard.
My Dad has floorstanders and mine are THX sub/sat. His arguably has better cohesion and a far more relaxed, laid back effortless, fuller sound. This is what you want in HiFi. Mine has far more precision, clarity and detail due to the smaller cabinet. This means that the base needs to be handled elsewhere, hence a sub. Its all very well talking about bass sound but theres usually a compromise to be had. For movies with sudden, explosive sounds, where precision placements, dynamics and clarity are required a sub/sat is the only set up that cuts the mustard.
NOT!!!!!
23 April 2011, 10:58 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
SRSport are you saying sub/sat are better for home cinema than a floorstander/sub combo?
The last THX speakers I remember selling were from Mordaunt Short which incorporated a subwoofer into each floorstander, they were rather good but pricey!
The last THX speakers I remember selling were from Mordaunt Short which incorporated a subwoofer into each floorstander, they were rather good but pricey!
23 April 2011, 11:02 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
You would be surprised how many people would actually do something like that having read that.
23 April 2011, 11:04 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
I wouldnt want to say that as such. Just that its my preference and it happens to be what THX spec speakers are as well. I dont know much about the MS speakers but Im sure there are always exceptions, especially if they pay THX enough money which is what there badge seems to be about nowadays.
23 April 2011, 11:15 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
SR I thought for a second there that you were going to open up the biggest can of worms in the home cinema world since some smuck denounced the need for subwoofers!
Last edited by Jamz3k; 23 April 2011 at 11:18 PM.
23 April 2011, 11:42 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Sorry I see what you mean, I didnt make it very clear. I was referring to sub/sat vs just floorstanders/full range speakers without the sub that my Dad uses. This doesnt cut the mustard when using it for AV.
24 April 2011, 07:04 AM
#42
Scooby Regular
If you dismiss what I say as nonsense then that is your problem. I shan't waste my time replying in any detail especially as you have (as usual ) not been bothered to digest what I have written..
I never said my system was a replacment for a subwoofer. I simply said it could get down to low enough frequencies (35 Hz) for ME and the system is driven properly so you can actually hear them.
BTW THX is a standard - it DOES NOT recommend anything specifically set up wise !!!
I never said my system was a replacment for a subwoofer. I simply said it could get down to low enough frequencies (35 Hz) for ME and the system is driven properly so you can actually hear them.
BTW THX is a standard - it DOES NOT recommend anything specifically set up wise !!!
No, you have either misunderstood what I said or deliberately tried to misrepresent it.
I said if you don't want a subwoofer that is entirely up to you, of course it is personal choice. People may not want a subwoofer for a variety of reasons including space etc
However this is what you said
Quote
Secondly most systems that seem to NEED a sub do so because the main system fails to deliver on its promised performance. For instance an average amp and speakers may claim to go down to 50Hz, but the problem is the amp isn't capable of delivering anywhere near the same level of signal at those frequencies as it does in the mid range. My system whilst moderate in terms of its figures delivers that performance across its specified range.
Thirdly I am yet to hear a system with a sub woofer that doesn't sound at best disjointed or at worst frankly bllody awful. All this talk of rattling windows and the likes is great for impressing your mates for 5 minutes but bloody annoying when you want to enjoy a movie. I don't need my floor vibrating to enjoy a film, maybe some of you do... it's personal choice.
1) So on the basis of this you are telling me that huge systems NEED a sub because they can't deliver on certain performance criteria but yours can? Could you please tell me what system it is that you are running?
2) On your final point above all I can say is that you have never heard a properly set up system then. As I said a properly set up decent quality sub is not about rattling/floors windows its about reproducing accurate bass as the director of the film intended you to hear.
If you don't want to hear it I'm not for a minute saying that you have committed some sort of sacrilege by that choice, I'm just saying there are plenty of systems out there that can do it well, and much better than not using a sub. You have just not heard them
24 April 2011, 07:52 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
Sorry, yes DTS for me too. One point to mention though is that DTS often sounds better because its mixed at a few db louder giving the impression of more weight, greater scale etc. If you flick between the two modes during a film trying taking in to account the extra volume before coming to a conclusion as to which is better quality.
24 April 2011, 09:50 AM
#45
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, you have either misunderstood what I said or deliberately tried to misrepresent it.
I said if you don't want a subwoofer that is entirely up to you, of course it is personal choice. People may not want a subwoofer for a variety of reasons including space etc
However this is what you said
Quote
Secondly most systems that seem to NEED a sub do so because the main system fails to deliver on its promised performance. For instance an average amp and speakers may claim to go down to 50Hz, but the problem is the amp isn't capable of delivering anywhere near the same level of signal at those frequencies as it does in the mid range. My system whilst moderate in terms of its figures delivers that performance across its specified range.
Thirdly I am yet to hear a system with a sub woofer that doesn't sound at best disjointed or at worst frankly bllody awful. All this talk of rattling windows and the likes is great for impressing your mates for 5 minutes but bloody annoying when you want to enjoy a movie. I don't need my floor vibrating to enjoy a film, maybe some of you do... it's personal choice.
1) So on the basis of this you are telling me that huge systems NEED a sub because they can't deliver on certain performance criteria but yours can? Could you please tell me what system it is that you are running?
2) On your final point above all I can say is that you have never heard a properly set up system then. As I said a properly set up decent quality sub is not about rattling/floors windows its about reproducing accurate bass as the director of the film intended you to hear.
If you don't want to hear it I'm not for a minute saying that you have committed some sort of sacrilege by that choice, I'm just saying there are plenty of systems out there that can do it well, and much better than not using a sub. You have just not heard them
I said if you don't want a subwoofer that is entirely up to you, of course it is personal choice. People may not want a subwoofer for a variety of reasons including space etc
However this is what you said
Quote
Secondly most systems that seem to NEED a sub do so because the main system fails to deliver on its promised performance. For instance an average amp and speakers may claim to go down to 50Hz, but the problem is the amp isn't capable of delivering anywhere near the same level of signal at those frequencies as it does in the mid range. My system whilst moderate in terms of its figures delivers that performance across its specified range.
Thirdly I am yet to hear a system with a sub woofer that doesn't sound at best disjointed or at worst frankly bllody awful. All this talk of rattling windows and the likes is great for impressing your mates for 5 minutes but bloody annoying when you want to enjoy a movie. I don't need my floor vibrating to enjoy a film, maybe some of you do... it's personal choice.
1) So on the basis of this you are telling me that huge systems NEED a sub because they can't deliver on certain performance criteria but yours can? Could you please tell me what system it is that you are running?
2) On your final point above all I can say is that you have never heard a properly set up system then. As I said a properly set up decent quality sub is not about rattling/floors windows its about reproducing accurate bass as the director of the film intended you to hear.
If you don't want to hear it I'm not for a minute saying that you have committed some sort of sacrilege by that choice, I'm just saying there are plenty of systems out there that can do it well, and much better than not using a sub. You have just not heard them
I said mid range/low end systems have a sub for that reason... how on earth did you get any comment about huge systems????????What does it matter what equipment I am running? Why does that matter to you. Or is it you don't believe I have a clue about systems and equipment and how they perfrom? You can't just take my word for it no? And of course if I tell you you will just slag it all off anyway so what is the f**king point!!!
Nearly all the posts at the start of the thread talking about subs talked about rattling windows, how much noise they generate... needing a structural engineer etc. etc. That is how 99% of systems using a sub sound... yes there will be some systems where they sound great, but FOR ME I am happy with my system and what it does. As you are unlikely to ever experience it then we can leave it there. I said all along that this was just my opinion, but you are obsessing about it.... why?
24 April 2011, 10:08 AM
#46
Scooby Regular
Where did I say HUGE systems need a sub because they can't deliver etc. ? Come on... where? I said mid range/low end systems have a sub for that reason... how on earth did you get any comment about huge systems????????
What does it matter what equipment I am running? Why does that matter to you. Or is it you don't believe I have a clue about systems and equipment and how they perfrom? You can't just take my word for it no? And of course if I tell you you will just slag it all off anyway so what is the f**king point!!!
Nearly all the posts at the start of the thread talking about subs talked about rattling windows, how much noise they generate... needing a structural engineer etc. etc. That is how 99% of systems using a sub sound... yes there will be some systems where they sound great, but FOR ME I am happy with my system and what it does. As you are unlikely to ever experience it then we can leave it there. I said all along that this was just my opinion, but you are obsessing about it.... why?
I said mid range/low end systems have a sub for that reason... how on earth did you get any comment about huge systems????????What does it matter what equipment I am running? Why does that matter to you. Or is it you don't believe I have a clue about systems and equipment and how they perfrom? You can't just take my word for it no? And of course if I tell you you will just slag it all off anyway so what is the f**king point!!!
Nearly all the posts at the start of the thread talking about subs talked about rattling windows, how much noise they generate... needing a structural engineer etc. etc. That is how 99% of systems using a sub sound... yes there will be some systems where they sound great, but FOR ME I am happy with my system and what it does. As you are unlikely to ever experience it then we can leave it there. I said all along that this was just my opinion, but you are obsessing about it.... why?
Firstly, I am not obsessing, this is a discussion forum is it not? What are you getting so wound up about and swearing and cussing
Now for the sake of accuracy you DID NOT say mid/low range systems need subs, you actually said this
Quote
Secondly most systems that seem to NEED a sub do so because the main system fails to deliver on its promised performance.
(If you are going to get all uppity then at least remember what you have said)
What I am trying to communicate is that it is NOT just low/mid range systems that use subs for movies. Even the most high end home cinemas with speakers the size of fridges use subs, for very good reason.(which I can't be bothered to go into)
I was then obviously fascinated to know what system you were running that has the ability to do what all these other systems can't.
So I'll spell it out for you again as you don't seem to actually want to take in what is being said to you (even though once before you warned me you have a very long memory).
It is not only low and mid range systems that need a sub for good movie sound playback. Even the highest end home (and commercial) cinema systems employ subs, often two or three depending on size of room, for very good reason.
It would be ludicrous to suggest that somehow your system/spekers can do things that the most expensive systems in the world can't.
If they can I'd be fascinated to know what they are.
Btw, this still doesn't mean I'm telling you that you must have a sub (before you try and hit me with that again).
I'm telling you that you are factually incorrect to say the things I have outlined above in that it is not just amps/speakers that are in some way flawed that use/need subs for accurate movie playback
Happy Easter
Last edited by Dingdongler; 24 April 2011 at 10:17 AM.
24 April 2011, 10:16 AM
#47
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, I am not obsessing, this is a discussion forum is it not? What are you getting so wound up about
Now for the sake of accuracy you DID NOT say mid/low range systems need subs, you actually said this
Secondly most systems that seem to NEED a sub do so because the main system fails to deliver on its promised performance.
(If you are going to get all uppity then at least remember what you have said)
What I am trying to communicate is that it is NOT just low/mid range systems that use subs for movies. Even the most high end home cinemas with speakers the size of fridges use subs, for very good reason.(which I can't be bothered to go into)
I was then obviously fascinated to know what system you were running that has the ability to do what all these other systems can't.
So I'll spell it out for you again as you don't seem to actually want to take in what is being said to you (even though once before you warned me you have a very long memory).
It is not only low and mid range systems that need a sub for good movie sound playback. Even the highest end home (and commercial) cinema systems employ subs, often two or three depending on size of room, for very good reason.
It would be ludicrous to suggest that somehow your system/spekers can do things that the most expensive systems in the world can't.
If they can I'd be fascinated to know what they are.
Btw, this still doesn't mean I'm telling you that you must have a sub (before you try and hit me with that again).
I'm telling you that you are factually incorrect to say the things I have outlined above.
Happy Easter
Now for the sake of accuracy you DID NOT say mid/low range systems need subs, you actually said this
Secondly most systems that seem to NEED a sub do so because the main system fails to deliver on its promised performance.
(If you are going to get all uppity then at least remember what you have said)
What I am trying to communicate is that it is NOT just low/mid range systems that use subs for movies. Even the most high end home cinemas with speakers the size of fridges use subs, for very good reason.(which I can't be bothered to go into)
I was then obviously fascinated to know what system you were running that has the ability to do what all these other systems can't.
So I'll spell it out for you again as you don't seem to actually want to take in what is being said to you (even though once before you warned me you have a very long memory).
It is not only low and mid range systems that need a sub for good movie sound playback. Even the highest end home (and commercial) cinema systems employ subs, often two or three depending on size of room, for very good reason.
It would be ludicrous to suggest that somehow your system/spekers can do things that the most expensive systems in the world can't.
If they can I'd be fascinated to know what they are.
Btw, this still doesn't mean I'm telling you that you must have a sub (before you try and hit me with that again).
I'm telling you that you are factually incorrect to say the things I have outlined above.
Happy Easter
So the synopsis of that is I didn't say huge systems then? FFS!!!!
Also why do you keep saying that I claim my system does things others can't. It goes down to 35Hz, that is all I have said. What is it that you can't understand about that?
I stand by what I said AV systems do not have to have a sub despite your assertions otherwise. I will continue to enjoy mine without and you can continue to tell me you are right and I am wrong as usual.
Anyway this thread WAS about DTS until you took it off topic with your stupid 'the law according to DingleDangler' so why not tell me I am wrong about that too?
24 April 2011, 10:20 AM
#48
Scooby Regular
F**king hell ... the irony!!!!!
So the synopsis of that is I didn't say huge systems then? FFS!!!!
Also why do you keep saying that I claim my system does things others can't. It goes down to 35Hz, that is all I have said. What is it that you can't understand about that?
I stand by what I said AV systems do not have to have a sub despite your assertions otherwise. I will continue to enjoy mine without and you can continue to tell me you are right and I am wrong as usual.
Anyway this thread WAS about DTS until you took it off topic with your stupid 'the law according to DingleDangler' so why not tell me I am wrong about that too?
So the synopsis of that is I didn't say huge systems then? FFS!!!!
Also why do you keep saying that I claim my system does things others can't. It goes down to 35Hz, that is all I have said. What is it that you can't understand about that?
I stand by what I said AV systems do not have to have a sub despite your assertions otherwise. I will continue to enjoy mine without and you can continue to tell me you are right and I am wrong as usual.
Anyway this thread WAS about DTS until you took it off topic with your stupid 'the law according to DingleDangler' so why not tell me I am wrong about that too?
You are wrong on that as well.
24 April 2011, 11:14 AM
#49
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, let's clarify a few things here:
On this little gem here is what I said in this very thread:
Three quotes that all say the opposite of what you assert yet you just keep on going with it. You know full well a subwoofer goes down to 20Hz or it should yet even though I have clearly stated my speakers don't go down that far you just don't stop. Either you can't read, don't want to read or.... well I shall leave the rest up to the reader's imagination.
Well I didn't say huge systems either yet you chose to say that I did. I said MOST systems and MOST systems are low/mid range yes? Not hard to understand what I meant, other posters seem to get it just fine... all except YOU!
I only post this as you are very fond of teling me to re-read what you have written yet you don't seem to practice what you preach.
So for one final time. I am happy with my system without a subwoofer. Yes I know it is missing some bass frequencies, but I don't care. Yes you can tell me the soundtracks were mixed with that in mind, but it is personal choice just like any system is personal choice. What you are saying is a bit akin to we shouldn't listen to albums on an iPod as they weren't mixed to have so much of the frequency range missing... or we shouldn't use a certain brand of audio compoenents as the freqeuncy repsonse is different to the one the sound engineer envisaged when he mixed the albums we are listening to.....
Now please can we get this back to DTS and away from the equipment.
I only post this as you are very fond of teling me to re-read what you have written yet you don't seem to practice what you preach.
So for one final time. I am happy with my system without a subwoofer. Yes I know it is missing some bass frequencies, but I don't care. Yes you can tell me the soundtracks were mixed with that in mind, but it is personal choice just like any system is personal choice. What you are saying is a bit akin to we shouldn't listen to albums on an iPod as they weren't mixed to have so much of the frequency range missing... or we shouldn't use a certain brand of audio compoenents as the freqeuncy repsonse is different to the one the sound engineer envisaged when he mixed the albums we are listening to.....
Now please can we get this back to DTS and away from the equipment.
24 April 2011, 01:47 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny BELFAST
Posts: 19,408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lads, lads, it's a fecking subwoofer ffs. we can agree to diifer. jaysus,mary and joseph it's like a creche in here.
my da's bigger n your da and he'll knock the $hite outta your da.
well my da's gay, and he'll **** the **** of your da, and he'll like it.
C/O frankie boyle of course
my da's bigger n your da and he'll knock the $hite outta your da.
well my da's gay, and he'll **** the **** of your da, and he'll like it.
C/O frankie boyle of course
24 April 2011, 02:08 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the point though... it's not a subwoofer... not in my system and never will it be!!!
The thread was about DTS and if we want to get it back there that would be great.
Anyone got any recommendations for the best DTS DVDs/Blu-rays.
I can put forward Shoot 'Em Up and Kill Bill - both excellent
The thread was about DTS and if we want to get it back there that would be great.
Anyone got any recommendations for the best DTS DVDs/Blu-rays.
I can put forward Shoot 'Em Up and Kill Bill - both excellent
24 April 2011, 03:00 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Saving Ryans Privates Region 1 had a spectacular dts soundtrack, especially with the explosions, you can really feel it shake the room through the...er...front speakers
24 April 2011, 03:42 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny BELFAST
Posts: 19,408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i mentioned them earlier in the thread. DTS-Master and DD+. new HD sound with BR discs. needs a new HD amp/receiver and is 7.1 not 5.1. sound is immense. i was looking at the onkyo amp a year or so back but i refuse to buy my vast dvd collection again in bluray. yes i have a few titles (gladiator, kindgom of heaven etc) but at £20 a pop it would cost me another fortune. add in the price of a new amp and two more B+W surround speakers and it's just not funny.
24 April 2011, 03:45 PM
#59
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: 52 Festive Road
Posts: 28,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i mentioned them earlier in the thread. DTS-Master and DD+. new HD sound with BR discs. needs a new HD amp/receiver and is 7.1 not 5.1. sound is immense. i was looking at the onkyo amp a year or so back but i refuse to buy my vast dvd collection again in bluray. yes i have a few titles (gladiator, kindgom of heaven etc) but at £20 a pop it would cost me another fortune. add in the price of a new amp and two more B+W surround speakers and it's just not funny.
DVD and blu-ray are end of life methods of transport to be honest.
Last edited by what would scooby do; 24 April 2011 at 03:47 PM.
24 April 2011, 03:46 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
DTS-master audio is sublime if you have the equipment to get the most out of it. Unfortunately I'm looking at a new AVR and my cheapo AVR that I have to tide me over can accept HD formats but the actual amplification isn't a patch on my old Pioneer AVR. Can't wait to get a new on!
Onkyo TX-NR609 is calling me! If hadn't just had to shell out for a cambelt, service and alternator for the car I'd have my eye on an 809 when they are released.
Onkyo TX-NR609 is calling me! If hadn't just had to shell out for a cambelt, service and alternator for the car I'd have my eye on an 809 when they are released.